SHAMALBHAI LALLUBHAI PRAJAPATI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to represent their case regarding the exemption of arrears of salary under Section 89A of the Act, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
What were the facts?
The assessee received an intimation under Section 143(1) and retirement benefits of Rs. 9,47,028 from services in the USA. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) did not grant relief under Section 89/89A for these benefits, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to file a revised return despite a defective return notice. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without a hearing or allowing the assessee to submit a revised return.
What were the issues?
Whether the CPC and CIT(A) erred in not granting relief under Section 89/89A for retirement benefits and in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without providing an opportunity to file a revised return or a hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 89,Section 89A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the action of CPC in not granting relief to appellant u/s 89/89A of the Act in respect of retirement benefit appellant. of Rs.9,47,028/- received by appellant.
(2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in not deciding the issue on merits, and in dismissing the appeal only on technical ground of not submitting a revised return. (3) (4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.”
Delay condoned.
The assessee received intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) of his son’s email-id as mentioned in the statement of facts submitted before the CIT(A). Further, the assessee has received arrears of retirement benefit from the services rendered in USA. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CPC has non-granted relief to the assessee u/s.89/89A of the Act in respect of retirement benefit. The assessee has not been granted an opportunity to file revised return before 31/12/2023. The Department emailed the assessee regarding defective return, who has not allowed the assessee to submit the revise return.
Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving any opportunity to the assessee to submit his revised return as well as not granted any hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO and the assessee may be allowed to represent his case as relates to granting exemption of arrears of salary u/s.89A of the Act.
Heard Ld.Counsel for the assessee. In light of the submissions of the Ld.AR that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for representing the assessee’s case for grant of exemption of arrears of salary u/s.89A of the Act and whether the Shamalbhai Lallubhai Prajapti vs. ITO AY : 2023-24 3 assessee is eligible for revise return to that extent. The matter is remanded back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Needless to say that the assessee may be given an opportunity by following of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounc The order is pronounced in the open Court on The order is pronounc The order is pronounc ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on 16 16 16/01/2026 16 /01/2026 /01/2026 /01/2026
More judgments on Section 89
- Nirmala Kaushik, Delhi vs Income Tax Assessment Unit, DelhiITA 5301/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Suresh Yashwant Awar, Igatpuri vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2660/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Dattatray Kaldate, Aurangabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), AurangabadITA 2177/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2019-20
- Prakash Sukhdeo Sonawane, Aurangabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), AurangabadITA 2180/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Jun 2026AY 2019-20
- Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Auraiya vs ACIT Circle-1, AgraITA 162/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
