Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was time-barred by 476 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing reasons such as not being aware of the order and the consultant's error. The ITAT considered the principles of condoning delay laid down by the Apex Court.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and that there was sufficient cause for condonation. The issue of leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) was covered in favor of the assessee by multiple ITAT decisions, making it a meritorious case. Condoning the delay would advance substantial justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by 476 days is to be condoned and if the disallowance of exemption on leave encashment is justified.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, Article 265 of the Constitution of India, Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 cuke Ram Dev Daiya Income Tax Officer , Vs. Flat No.A-2 Jeevan Anand, Ward-1 Gautam Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Jaipur Pradesh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AASPD 4356 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/12/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 01/01/2026 vkns'k@ ORDER vkns'k@ vkns'k@ vkns'k@ PER: ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (ld. CIT(A)), Addl/JCIT (A)-1 Gurugram under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
2. The appeal has been noted to be time-barred by 476 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application are substantiated in a duly sworn affidavit dated 18.12.2025 which was also filed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee referred to the contents of the application while orally making out a case of there being sufficient cause for the delay and accordingly, requested condonation of the same. His contentions, primarily were to the effect, that the delay was not deliberate, there was sufficient cause for the delay and on merits since the assessee had a favourable case covered by various decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, the delay needed to be condoned to sub-serve the interest of justice. That if the delay is not condoned the assessee’s meritorious matter would be thrown out and the cause of justice defeated. His contention was that as per the facts leading to delay the assessee fulfilled all the principles lay down by Judicial Authorities for condoning the delay. Reference was made to several decisions in this regard, which shall be referred to in the later part of the judgment.
3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned.
4. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the contents of the application filed before me by the assessee along with the duly sworn affidavit explaining the reason for the delay in the filing of the present appeal before us by 476 days. The ld. CIT(A) had passed the order on 29.03.2024. The assessee was to file the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the order; however, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 19.09.2025 by a delay of 476.
5. Since the arguments made by both the sides before the Tribunal rest on the principles laid down by judicial authorities relating to condonation of delay it is pertinent to first bring out the principles enunciated by various judicial authorities for condonation of delay.
Beginning with the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another Vs. M/s Katiji and Others 1988 SC 897(7), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power of courts to condone delay conferred by Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was primarily to enable courts to advance substantial justice to parties on merits. The Hon'ble Court noted that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by Legislature in Section 5 of the Limitation Act was technically elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which would sub-serve the ends of justice, noting that giving justice was the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. The principles noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision for condonation of delay are reproduced hereunder:-
“The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- full manner which sub-serves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
“Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
As is evident, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a liberal approach be adopted for condonation of delay based on the principle that the ultimate object / life-purpose of Courts is to advance justice and that merely for technical considerations of delay in the filing of appeals, the opportunity for seeking justice should not be denied to an assessee particularly when the delay is not deliberate. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized the importance of advancement of substantial justice stating that it would override technical considerations noting that the judiciary is respected not on account of its powers to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
8. Reference is also being made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222, dated 03-09-1998 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that:
"Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss."
As is evident from a bare perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court the court noted that limitation for filing appeals and fixing a lifespan to the power to seek legal remedy was necessary since unending period for seeking remedy would lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The Hon’ble apex Court noted that the Law of Limitation was founded on public policy. That it is for the general welfare that a period is put to litigation.
Having noted so, the Hon’ble apex Court held that prescribing limitation does not mean or is not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. The purpose of limitation, it was held was only to see that parties did not resort to dilatory tactics but sought their remedy promptly. The Hon’ble apex Court held that, there is no presumption that delays in approaching the Court is always deliberate. It has been reemphasized that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It was noted that there can be same lapse on the part of the litigant concerned causing the delay, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the doors against him. That as long as the explanation offered for delay does not smack of mala fides or is not put forth as a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.
The principles laid down for condonation of delays, therefore, is that;
• a liberal approach should be adopted to advance justice to parties and this is based on the principle that the purpose of Courts is to advance substantial justice and limitation is prescribed not to foreclose the rights of any appellant but merely to avoid anarchy and chaos in the judicial system.
• The underlying objective of the Courts being advancement of justice and limitation being prescribed only with the end and purpose to avoid anarchy, the Rule of Limitation should not be strictly and technically applied.
• That as long as, it is evident from the facts of the case, that the delay was not deliberate and adopted as a dilatory tactic and the assessee has a good case the delay ought to be condoned.
11. These principles have been relied upon in various other decisions of Courts repeatedly, where finding the explanation of the assessee to fit into the principles, the delays have been condoned and if not so found the delays were not condoned.
12. Since both the sides have placed their arguments on the principles so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as above, it is imperative to test the facts of the assessee’s case on the principles noted above by us.
13. The application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay supported with a duly sworn affidavit bringing out the reasons for the delay reads as under:-
I, Ram Dev Daiya S/o Chetan Ram aged about 65 years R/o.A-1/2015 Flats, Sector-6 Jeevan Ashray, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039 (PAN solemnly affirm on oath: AASPD4356J) do hereby
That I am a Senior citizen and retired from PSU- Insurance Company Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).
2. That Ld. JCIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram passed an order 29.03.2024, u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in my case. This appeal before CIT(Appeals) was preferred by me against the Intimation order dated 19.10.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21 issued by the Ld. CPC, without giving SCN.
That against the impugned order Ld. JCIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram, I am in appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench.
The appeal is filed on 19.09.2025 (i.e. with a delay of 479 days) and the appeal number is ITA 1280/JPR/2025.
That at the time of filing of appeal before CIT (Appeals), the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 was rd.daiya01@GMAIL.COM. But, I have not chosen the option to sent notice/communication through email as being a retired person. I doesn't open email on regular basis. I have also not given any email address in Point No. 17 of Form No. 35.
6. That the 1st hearing notice was communicated to email id other than given in Form No. 35. But, a CC was sent on the email ID given in Form No. 35 (i.e. rd.daniya@licindia.com) and CC to rd.daiya01@GMAIL.COM (i.e. email ID given in Form No. 35). I submitted the submission of 1st Notice on 19.09.2022
7. That the 2nd Hearing Notice was communicated to another email Id (i.e. ramdevdaiya60@gmail.com) and CC to lalit.yg@gmail.com and pankajgarg1061@gmail.com. I also submitted the submission of 2nd hearing notice on 25.01.2024.
That I was not aware about the order passed by Ld. JCIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram, dated 29.03.2024 till 20.06.2024.
9. Hence, till 20th June, 2024 (i.e. till 83 days after passing the order), I was totally unaware about the appeal order passed against me.
10. When, I visited to my consultant to file my ITR on 20.06.2024, he told me that my appeal was dismissed & I requested to file the second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT and he agreed.
When I again visited to my consultant for filing of my ITR for next year (i.e. A.Y. 2025-26), I asked him about status of my ITAT appeal. Then, he told me that he had discussed with many professionals and all advised me that, it is a weak case and there is no chance of favourable order. Therefore, he did not file the appeal.
Thereafter, I met to Mr. Om Prakash Khandelwal and in discussion with him, he told me that he got favourable order on identical issue of exemption u/s. 10(10AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 06.08.2025 (having Appeal No. ITA 887/JPR/2025). He also provided me a list of 22 favourable orders along with private message & mobile number of Mr. M.C. Gupta.
Then I insisted to that counsel to file the appeal or give back the file. Then Mr. Rajesh Gupta filed the appeal & given file to me and on first hearing I argue myself on the basis of decision of Shri Om Prakash Khandelwal case and the list of 22 cases. But, at the time of first hearing Hon'ble Bench advised me to file an application for condonation of delay, as the delay is inordinate.
Then, with immediate effect I filed a delay condone application on 12.12.2025. Thereafter, for hearing on 16.12.2025, I engaged a new counsel for arguments of the case. The new counsel advised me to file a detailed affidavit condonation of delay along with a revised application for condonation of delay.
That the calculation chart of period of delay is as follows:-
16. That the Other Reasons:- (i). Assessee is a retired salaried, Senior Citizen. So, the demand of Rs. 3,15,998/ is very huge amount caused hardship. (ii). The demand raised without following the Natural Justice and the addition is without issue of Show Cause Notice. (iii). A large numbers of taxpayers got relief in identical issue. So, the substantive justice is in favour of me.
(iv). If my appeal left unheard, it is case of taxes without authority of Law, which is against Article 265 of the Constitution of India. (v). If my appeal left unheard, then it will over enrichment of exchequer in cost of mistake of a innocent taxpayer, which is disproportionate burden in comparison to omission on part of taxpayer. vi). Delay is without any malafide intention, without deliberately.
18. That the delay of 479 days was due to some-time unaware about the adverse order dated 29.03.2024 and some-time because of mistake of consultant.
19. Therefore, the same can be treated as sufficient cause as the delay is bonafide, unintentionally and beyond my control.”
14. A perusal of the above would reveal reasons for the delay as:- (1) The assessee was not checking his emails everyday, on which the order of the ld. CIT(A) was served, as a consequence of which he became aware of the passing of the ld. CIT(A) order after 60 days of the passing of the order.
(2) The laxity on the part of his consultant, who he had approached thereafter for taking remedial action on becoming aware of the passing of the ld. CIT(A) order, but who did not do so for almost a year resulting in a substantial delay .
(3) The assessee becoming aware only later of favourable orders being passed on the issue involved in his case by various Benches of the Tribunal in different cases, when he pro-actively therefore, pursued the filing of appeal to the Tribunal.
15. Looking into the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the assessee before us, it can be safely said that the delay in filing of the present appeal before us was not a deliberate and conscious delay. The assessee immediately contacted his consultant to file an appeal as soon as he became aware of the passing of the ld. CIT(A) order on checking his email where it was served albeit by a delay of sixty days. As far as the delay of 60 days in checking his email is concerned, the same appears to be probable since the assessee is an individual retired from his job, aged 65 years, and it is probable for a person not to check his email everyday. The fact that the order of ld. CIT(A) was served on the email of the assessee and not physical is not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, that the assessee became aware of the passing of the ld. CIT(A) order only when he checked his email after 60 days is a plausible explanation and no laxity can be attributed on the part of the assessee on this account.
A major cause for the delay as stated on oath is the fault of the consultant of the assessee, whom he had approached immediately, on becoming aware of the passing of the order, but who did not file an appeal for a considerable period of time and the assessee became aware of this fact only when he approached him, a year later to file his return of income.
What is clearly evident from the explanation of the assessee is that, the assessee was pro-active in pursing the remedy available in law, against the passing of ld. CIT(A) order, and there was no deliberate or conscious attempt by him to delay the filing of the appeal.
Even otherwise, it has been brought to our notice that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT. It was brought to our notice that the assessee had received retirement benefits during the year, being in the nature of leave encashment amounting to Rs.13,12,806/- and claimed exemption of the same in the return of the income filed. But while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act the CPC restricted the exemption to the extent of Rs.3 lacs as per the limitations prescribed under Section 10(10AA) of the Act, resulting in addition to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.10,12,806/-.
The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the CPC. Ld. counsel for the assessee has pointed out that in as much 22 decisions of the ITAT (list given to us), the ITAT has held the limitation of exemption of leave encashment applicable for the impugned year as per Section 10(10AA) of the Act to be Rs.25lacs and applying this limit to the facts of the present case the assessee, it was pointed out, was entitled to complete relief, the entire addition being made in its case liable to be deleted. The ld. DR fairly conceded to the said fact.
Noting the same, it is evident, that besides the delay not being deliberate it is also a case where, if the delay is not condoned it would result in gross injustice to the assessee. The assessee would be held liable to pay tax on income, which as per law as interpreted by Courts, he is not required to pay.
The principles lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for condonation of delay, repeatedly emphasizing a liberal approach to be adopted for advancement of substantial justice as long as the delay is not deliberate and a meritorious case not being thrown out at the threshold merely for a technical consideration, would squarely apply in the facts of the present case, following which therefore, I hold that there being sufficient cause adduced before us for condoning the delay in the filing of the present appeal before me by 476 days ,it is a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay in filing of the present appeal of 476 days is therefore condoned.
Taking up now the appeal of the assessee, the grounds raised
by the assessee read as under:- “Leave Encashment Fully Exempted
1. Any payment received by an employee of the Central Govt. OR a State Govt. as the cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect of the period of Earned Leave at his credit at the time of his retirement (whether) on superannuation OR otherwise.
Any such payment (as given in para (i) above) received by an employee ot her than employee Central OR State Govt in respect of so much of period of EL as does not exceed 10 months calculated on the basis of the average salary drawn by the employee during the period of 10 months immediately preceding his retirement. (Section 10(10AA) of the I-T Act, 1961.”
As noted above, the issue related to denial of exemption under Section 10(10AA) amounting to Rs.13,12,806/-. The assessee is a salaried individual who had returned leave encashment salary received on retirement amounting to Rs.13,12,806/- and claimed exemption of the same u/s 10(10AA) of the Act. The same was however restricted to Rs.3 lacs while processing the return of income of the assessee by the CPC in terms of the provisions of Section 10(10AA) of the Act.
I have noted above the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before me of various Co-ordinate Bench decisions of the ITAT, in as much as 22 cases, holding that the limit of exemption of leave encashment as per Section 10(10AA) of the Act applicable for the impugned year would be Rs.25 lacs. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the list of the said decisions vide submission dated 25-11-2025 as under:-
Name of the Appellant and ITA Sr Name of the Assessment Date of ITAT Bench No No Employer Year Order Mr. Ram Charan Gupta 1) Bank Employee 2020-21 Jaipur 27/06/2 Mr. Satish Kumar Thakur Electricity Board 2) 2018-19 Chandigarh 12/09/2 Himachal Pradesh Mr. Mangala Ram Nimbark 3) BSNL 2018-19 Jaipur 04/10/2 Mr. Govind Chatwani Electricity Board 4) 2020-21 Jaipur 31/10/2 Rajasthan Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta MA Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran 2020-21 Jaipur 5) 18/02/2025 No 49/JPR/2023 (Arising out of Nigam Ltd Rajasthan Mr. Dashrath Kumar Sen 6) BSNL 2020-21 Jaipur 05/03/2025 ITA No 1258/JPR/2024
Mr. Devi Dutt Agrawal 7) State Bank of India 2020-21 Jaipur 13/03/2 Mr. Suman Kumar Jha Oil and Natural Gas 8) 2020-21 Ahmedabad 18/03/2 Commission Ltd Medical Department Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mittal 9) 2021-22 Jaipur 07/04/2 Rajasthan 10) Mr.Sham Sunder Sahani Canara Bank 2021-22 Delhi 21/04/2 Mrs. Neelam Gupta Bank of Baroda 2020-21 Delhi 21/04/2025 ITANo081/DEL/2025 12) Mr. Sharad Shukla 2020-21 Agra 22/04/2 State Bank of India 13) Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain 2019-20 Agra 18/06/2 State Bank of India 14) Mr. Anil Kumar Khatri 2020-21 Agra 18/06/2 Punjab National Bank 15) Mr. Goverdhan Bhambhani 2020-21 Ahmedabad 28/07/2 State Bank of 16) Mrs. Sujata Gupta 2022-23 Jaipur 31/07/2025 Bikaner & Jaipur Life Insurance 17) Mr. Om Prakash Khandelwal 2022-23 Jaipur 06/08/2025 Corporation of India Punjab & Sind Bank 18) Mr. Ashok Arora 2021-22 Delhi 28/08/2 Mr. Chandra Prakash State Bank of India 19) 2021-22 Jaipur 07/10/2025 Vashishtha Canara Bank 20) Mr. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa 2020-21 Delhi 29/10/2 Canara Bank 21) Mr. Vijay Pal Gupta 2021-22 Delhi 29/10/2 State Bank of India 22) Mr. Sudhakar G. Paldewar 2020-21 Pune 31/10/2025 ITA No 1781/PUN/2025
Ld. DR fairly agreed that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel before me. He was unable to bring to my notice any contrary decision of the ITAT in this regard, nor was he able to bring to my notice any decision of a higher judicial authority holding to the contrary. In view of the above I hold that the disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee of leave encashment received under Section 10(10AA) of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,12,806/- be deleted.
The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
The order to be pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice Board.