Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 for claim of leave salary encashment exemption dismissed

Rectification application u/s 154 for claim of leave salary encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA) dismissed as barred by limitation

In a recent judgment, ITAT has dismissed a plea for claim for leave salary encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA) as the rectification application u/s 154 was made nearly after eight years.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3860 (2024) (02) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre FOR rejection of application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for claim of leave salary encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act.

The assessee filed his return of income without claiming any exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1).

Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act claiming  exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act on account of leave encashment. This application was dismissed by the Assessing Officer (AO) who was of the opinion that a fresh claim can only be made through a revised return of income.

The assessee challenged the order of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that pursuant to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench it became aware of the eligibility of exemption in respect to leave salary encashment u/s 10(10AA) of the Act and hence moved a rectification application to rectify the mistake apparent from record.

The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the CIT(A) who was of the belief that the claim can only be made through a revised return of income. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had moved the rectification application after nearly eight years after the intimation u/s 143(1) was passed which was beyond the period of limitation as provided in section 154 of the Act.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not make any claim in his return of income was undisputed. It was true that after the judgment of the Tribunal the assessee became aware of the eligibility of the deduction available u/s 10(10AA) of the Act that was four years later and the rectification application was moved after further four years later.

The Tribunal opined that considering from all possible angles the application of the assessee was barred by limitation u/s 154 of the Act. Most importantly on the date of the processing of the return, there was no mistake apparent from record which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act.

With respect to the decisions relied upon by the assessee, the Tribunal observed that it was on a different set of facts mostly on the eligibility of the claim of deduction u/s 10(10AA) of the Act but the case of the assessee was the claim u/s 154 of the Act which was barred by limitation.

Accordingly, the ITAT declined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

No disallowance u/s 43B if expenditure not claimed in Profit and Loss Account

No disallowance u/s 43B can be made if expenditure has not been not claimed by the assessee in Profit and…

17 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Assessee developing infrastructure facility of Govt. not contractor for denying 80IA deduction

Whether an assessee developing an infrastructure facility of Government is a contractor and ineligible for claim of deduction under Section…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Jurisdictional PCIT/CIT to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A for Registration u/s 12A

Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A for Registration u/s…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO not justified in making addition by adopting extrapolation without any material evidence

AO was not justified in making addition by adopting method of extrapolation without bringing any material evidence in support -…

3 days ago
  • bankruptcy

Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers decided by CoC

Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or to substitute its own view for the decision…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

When quantum appeal restored, penalty can’t be levied for non-payment of demand

When quantum appeal stands restored to the AO, penalty can not be levied u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act…

5 days ago