YOGENDRA KUMAR MAHOR,JHANSI vs. ITO,WARD- 3 . JHANSI, JHANSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 141/AGR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 February 2025AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had restricted the assessee's claim for leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA) to Rs. 3 lakhs, based on the assessee not being a Central or State Government employee. The Tribunal observed that there was no clarity in the lower appellate order regarding the assessee's actual employer, especially if it was not a Central or State Government entity. Furthermore, the case file lacked material to enable the Tribunal to appreciate all relevant facts concerning this crucial aspect. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the exemption claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Yogendra Kumar Mahor, filed an appeal for assessment year 2019-20 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal challenged proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute concerns the assessee's claim for leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA) amounting to Rs. 7,95,659. The lower authorities restricted this exemption to Rs. 3 lakhs, holding that the assessee was neither a Central Government nor a State Government employee. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal proceeded ex-parte. The Revenue was represented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the lower authorities erred in restricting the assessee's claim for leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to Rs. 3 lakhs, by holding that the assessee is neither a Central Government nor a State Government employee? The Revenue contended that the lower authorities had restricted the assessee's claim for leave encashment exemption to Rs. 3 lakhs because the assessee was not a Central or State Government employee. The Revenue did not dispute that there was a lack of clarity in the impugned order regarding the assessee's actual employer, who is not covered as a Central or State Government employee. The Revenue also did not provide any material to clarify this aspect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10AA),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 03.02.2025Pronounced: 03.02.2025

Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Yogendra Kumar Mahor, 23, Pratap Pura Nagra, Ward-3, Jhansi, Jhansi Uttar Pradesh PAN :ACLPM5073G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.02.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250 /2022-23/1043203076(1) dated 26.05.2022 involving proceedings under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have restricted the assessee’s section 10(10AA) claim of leave encashment exemption claim of Rs.7,95,659/- to Rs. 3 lakhs only thereby holding that neither he is Central Government nor State Government employee.

4.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that there is no clarity in the impugned lower appellate discussion as to who is the assessee’s actual employer not covered as Central or State Government, as the case may be. There is further no material in the case file on this clinching aspect which could enable the tribunal to appreciate all the relevant facts. We, therefore, deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunities. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 3rd February, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2 | P a g e

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 →