OM PRAKASH KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-4(1), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 887/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-2023
OM Prakash Khandelwal
7, Ekta Marg, Path No. -07, vijay
Ward-4(1),
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADHPK9109L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Mukesh Goyal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by:
Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 06/08/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member
Appellant-assessee is a retired employee. During the year under consideration, he received a sum of Rs. 15,16,271/-, towards leave encashment.
CPC, Bangaluru issued intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 31.01.2023, allowing exemption only to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-, u/s 10(10AA)(2) of the Act. Since the assessee felt aggrieved by disallowing
2
OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur.
exemption as regards the balance amount of Rs. 12,16,271/-, he challenged the intimation before learned CIT(A).
Vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the intimation dated
31.01.2023. That is how, present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
2. It may be mentioned here that there is delay of only 3 days in the filing of the appeal. There is no objection from the department to the condonation of said small delay for the reasons given in the application.
Accordingly, the delay in filing of the application is condoned.
On merits
3. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 15,16,271/- was received by the appellant by way of leave encashment benefit in terms of section 10(10)AA of the Act, and that notification dated 24.05.2023 was issued by CBDT whereby the benefit was extended to non government employees by raising the limit to Rs. 25
lakhs and that too with retrospective effect. Therefore, Ld. AR has contended that by not applying the said notification dated 24.05.2023,
Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order, and argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
3
OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur.
In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not disputed issuance of notification no. 31/2023/F.No.200/2023-ITA-I dated 24.05.2023 and that the above said limit as regards leave encashment was raised to Rs. 25 lakhs. 5. In view of the notification dated 24.05.2023, which is a piece of evidence in the form of beneficial instructions meant for non government employees, the assessment order and the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A) deserve to be set aside. Result 6. As a result, this appeal is allowed. Assessing Officer to give effect to this decision. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4
OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur.
विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 887/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत