SHARAD SHUKLA,JHANSI vs. ADDL-JCIT (A), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 108/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 April 2025AY 2020-21Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their claim, considering recent CBDT notifications and case law.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA). The CPC disallowed a portion of this exemption, stating the assessee was not a government employee. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for full exemption on leave encashment and if the CIT(A) properly considered the relevant notifications and case laws.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10AA)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Pronounced: 22.04.2025

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year:2020-21) Mr. Sharad Shukla Income-tax Officer, बनाम/ 08, Shivpuri Road, Vasudev Ward 2(3)(4), Lalitpur. Vs. Vihar, Jhansi (UP)-284001. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AGDPS-2689-A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of an order passed by learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 30-11-2023 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) on 13-06-2022. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and accordingly, the appeal was heard with the able assistance of Ld. Sr. DR. The registry has noted delay of 59 days in the appeal which stand condoned.

2.

From case records, it emerges that in intimation u/s 143(1), the exemption u/s 10 was restricted to Rs.20.93 Lacs by disallowing leave encashment of Rs.4.50 Lacs on the ground that the assessee was not a government employee. The assessee claimed that full leave encashment of Rs.7.50 Lacs is exempted u/s 10(10AA) instead of Rs.3 Lacs.

However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

The assessee, in its submissions, has referred to CBDT Notification No.31/2023 enhancing such limit to Rs.25 Lacs. The assessee has also quoted certain decisions of Tribunal and Delhi High Court to buttress his submissions. A plea of lack of opportunity of hearing has also been raised. Considering all these factors, we restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate his case.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 10(10AA)

All 498 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10AA) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →