Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an employee of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, received leave encashment benefit. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee sought condonation of delay due to her age and seeking advice from tax consultants.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age and the fact that she contacted multiple experts. On merit, the Tribunal held that the assessment order and the impugned order deserved to be set aside in view of the CBDT notification extending the leave encashment benefit limit to Rs. 25 lakhs with retrospective effect.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned and whether the leave encashment benefit received by the assessee is taxable in light of the retrospective notification.
Sections Cited
143(1), 10(10)AA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 915/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sujata Gupta, cuke The ITO, 1 F-65, Sector-1, Malviya Nagar, Ward-6(4), Vs. Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPG5281A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal, C.A. (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 30/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Appellant-assessee, who claims to have got superannuated from M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ) , has challenged order dated 17.01.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), whereby her appeal filed there, while challenging order dated 02.02.2023, passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed.
The impugned order is dated 17.01.2024. Present appeal came to be presented on 13.06.2025 i.e. much beyond prescribed period of limitation.
Sujata Gupta, Jaipur. Along with the appeal, the assessee-appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has firstly advanced arguments on the point of condonation of delay. The only contention raised by ld. AR for the applicant is that the assessee is an old lady of 62 years, who could not present the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, as she contacted many tax consultants before making up her mind to go for appeal challenging the impugned order. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the applicant-appellant has urged that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned.
Alongwith the application, the applicant-appellant submitted to her affidavit. Since that was an unattested affidavit, duly affidavit of the applicant has been subsequently presented.
As noticed above, the applicant-appellant was in the services of the Bank and the matter pertains to retrial benefit i.e. leave encashment, received by her, on her superannuation. When the applicant-appellant states on oath that she contacted many legal experts, which led to delay in filing of the appeal, we deem it a fit case to believe her deposition on affidavit, particularly, when said deposition goes unchallenged. Consequently, delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
Sujata Gupta, Jaipur. On merit 5. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 14,24,413/- 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 with retrospective effect, Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order, and argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
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.
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.