SUJATA GUPTA,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 915/JPR/2025

AI Insights

Sujata Gupta, the appellant, challenged the order dated 17.01.2024 by the Learned CIT(A), which dismissed her earlier appeal against the assessment order dated 02.02.2023 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute centered on the leave encashment benefit of Rs. 14,24,413 received by her upon superannuation, which was subject to tax. A notification dated 24.05.2023 by the CBDT raised the tax-exempt limit for leave encashment to Rs. 25 lakhs for non-government employees, effective retrospectively. The appellant argued that this notification should apply to her case, which the department did not contest. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712220 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• 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: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PORWAL; THROUGH V.C; WAY OF LEAVE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Retrospective amendment; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” 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. 915/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sujata Gupta, 1 F-65, Sector-1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPG5281A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal, C.A. (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 30/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Appellant-assessee, who claims to have got superannuated from M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ) , has challenged order dated 17.01.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), whereby her appeal filed there, while challenging order dated 02.02.2023, passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed. 2. The impugned order is dated 17.01.2024. Present appeal came to be presented on 13.06.2025 i.e. much beyond prescribed period of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 915/JPR/2025 Sujata Gupta, Jaipur. Along with the appeal, the assessee-appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has firstly advanced arguments on the point of condonation of delay. The only contention raised by ld. AR for the applicant is that the assessee is an old lady of 62 years, who could not present the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, as she contacted many tax consultants before making up her mind to go for appeal challenging the impugned order. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the applicant-appellant has urged that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned. 3. Alongwith the application, the applicant-appellant submitted to her affidavit. Since that was an unattested affidavit, duly affidavit of the applicant has been subsequently presented. 4. As noticed above, the applicant-appellant was in the services of the Bank and the matter pertains to retrial benefit i.e. leave encashment, received by her, on her superannuation. When the applicant-appellant states on oath that she contacted many legal experts, which led to delay in filing of the appeal, we deem it a fit case to believe her deposition on affidavit, particularly, when said deposition goes unchallenged. Consequently, delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 915/JPR/2025 Sujata Gupta, Jaipur. On merit 5. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that an amount of Rs. 14,24,413/- 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 with retrospective effect, Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order, and argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. 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. 7. 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. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 915/JPR/2025 Sujata Gupta, Jaipur. Result 8. 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 31/07/2025. 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:- 31/07/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sujata Gupta, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 915/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "