OM PRAKASH KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-4(1), JAIPUR

PDF

ITA 887/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 August 2025AY 2022-2023Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 887/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-2023 बनाम Vs. | | | |:---|:---| | OM Prakash Khandelwal | Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. | | 7, Ekta Marg, Path No. -07, vijay Bari, Dher Ke Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur. | | | स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADHPK9109L | | | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent | निधर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Mukesh Goyal,4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a retired employee, received Rs. 15,16,271 as leave encashment. CPC, Bengaluru, allowed an exemption of only Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 10(10AA)(2) of the Act, creating a demand for the balance amount. The assessee challenged this intimation before the CIT(A), who upheld the intimation.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Notification dated 24.05.2023, which raised the exemption limit for leave encashment to Rs. 25 lakhs for non-government employees with retrospective effect, should be applied to the assessee's case. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s impugned order were set aside.

Key Issues

Whether the enhanced exemption limit for leave encashment for non-government employees, as per CBDT Notification dated 24.05.2023, applies retrospectively to the assessee's case, allowing a higher exemption than initially granted.

Sections Cited

143(1), 10(10AA)(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 887/JPR/2025

Hearing: 06/08/2025Pronounced: 06/08/2025

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 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.

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.

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.