ITAT dismisses claim of Leave Encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA)(ii) beyond Rs. 3 lakhs
In a recent judgment, ITAT Ahmedabad has dismisses claim of Leave Encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA)(ii) beyond Rs. 3 lakhs for prior to AY 2023-24
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5131 (2026) (04) abacus.in ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming rejecting the claim of exemption of Leave Encashment amount u/s 10(10AA)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and restricting the same to Rs. 300000/-.
The appellant assesse had retired from RBI in F.Y. 2019-20 (on 31.05.2019) and received approx. Rs. 16 lacs as “Leave Encashment” benefit in terms of sec 10(10AA) of Act.
The assessee filed return of Income which was later Revised claiming whole of such amount of Leave Encashment exempt u/s 10(10AA)(ii) of Act.
However, the CPC Bengaluru vide adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act restricted the exemption of leave encashment to Rs. 3,00,000/- and disallowed/Added the rest of the amount to the returned income.
Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) NFAC had wrongly disallowed / Restricted the exemption of Leave encashment benefit to Rs. 3,00,000/ in view of CBDT notification number 31/2023 dated, 24/05/2023 even non government employees are entitled to exemption u/s 10(10AA)(ii) of the Act upto Rs. 25.00 Lakhs maximum (Retrospectively).
It was argued that in view of CBDT notification, section 10(10AA) sub section (i) & (ii) both are at par & since it is clear that as per explanatory memorandum that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification. Thus section 10(10AA)(i) & (ii) both are at par (with retrospective effect & even the private employee on retirement are entitled for such higher limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- or actual amount received whichever is less; to claim u/s 10(10AA) of Act.
The Tribunal observed that the contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer was not right in disallowing the exemption exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs u/s 10(10AA)(ii) of the Act considering the Gazette Notification No. 50588(E) dated 31.05.2002 issued by CBDT effective from 01.04.1998.
The Tribunal further observed that on this issue the Hon’ble High Court categorically held the Government should have revised the upper limit, which was fixed under the notification of 2002 as Rs.3 lakhs taking into consideration the three pay revisions. However, the Government has not done so. The Court, though, has sympathy with the petitioners, but considering the limitation on powers of the Court, this Court is unable to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to revise the upper limit in respect of the employees who retired before 01.04.2023. This is in the realm of policy decision, which is to be taken by the Executive.
The Tribunal also observed that assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court which had only issued notice and final order had not been placed by the assessee.
Therefore, in light of the decision of Hon’ble High Court the appeal was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…