OM PRAKASH KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-4(1), JAIPUR

ITA 887/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves OM Prakash Khandelwal, a retired employee, who received Rs. 15,16,271 as leave encashment during the assessment year 2022-2023. The Central Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru, allowed an exemption of only Rs. 3,00,000 under section 10(10AA)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the balance was disallowed. Aggrieved by this decision, Khandelwal appealed to the CIT(A), which upheld the CPC's decision. Subsequently, Khandelwal appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which found merit in his argument based on a retrospective notification that raised the exemption limit for leave encashment to Rs. 25 lakhs for non-government employees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714206 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH GOYAL; WAY OF LEAVE
• Keywords: Set aside; Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 887/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-2023 OM Prakash Khandelwal 7, Ekta Marg, Path No. -07, vijay Bari, Dher Ke Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur. Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADHPK9109L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Mukesh Goyal, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Appellant-assessee is a retired employee. During the year under consideration, he received a sum of Rs. 15,16,271/-, towards leave encashment. CPC, Bangaluru issued intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 31.01.2023, allowing exemption only to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-, u/s 10(10AA)(2) of the Act. Since the assessee felt aggrieved by disallowing Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 887/JPR/2025 OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur. exemption as regards the balance amount of Rs. 12,16,271/-, he challenged the intimation before learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the intimation dated 31.01.2023. That is how, present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. It may be mentioned here that there is delay of only 3 days in the filing of the appeal. There is no objection from the department to the condonation of said small delay for the reasons given in the application. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the application is condoned. On merits 3. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 15,16,271/- 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, Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order, and argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 887/JPR/2025 OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur. 4. 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. 5. 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. Result 6. As a result, this appeal is allowed. Assessing Officer to give effect to this decision. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 887/JPR/2025 OM Prakash Khandelwal, Jaipur. 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 887/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "