TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imation is extracted hereinbelow. 3. Aggrieved by that order passed u/s 154 r.w.s 143(1) of the Act by ld. AO CPC assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: "6. Decision 6.1. Ground 1: The grounds of appeal and statement of facts and the order uis 154 of the act in the case of the appellant have been carefully considered. It is observed that the CPC had computed total income of the appellant at Rs. 35,71,070/-restricting claim of Rs. 20,29,482/-for leave encashment of the appellant u/s 10(10AA) to Rs. 3,00,000/- only. 6.1.2 The appellant pleads that he has superannuated on 30.09.2020 from the services of Rajasthan government obtaining leave encashment of Rs. 20,29,482/-. The appellant claims that the same is fully exempt to him u/s 10(10AA) of the act as the appellant was a state government employee. However, the AO, CPC vide order u/s 154 of the act dated 27.01.2023 restricted the claim to Rs. 3,00,000/- only. In this regard it is noted that the appellant filed the ITR within the extended due date. Further, on verification of the subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as rightly limited the leave encashment received by the appellant to Rs. 3,00,000/- only. In view of the above, the order u/s 154 of the act dated 27.01.2023 is upheld. The appeal on this ground is Dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed"." 4. Since the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by an order dated 29.10.2024, the assessee is in appeal challenged that the finding of ld. CIT(A) on the various grounds which reads as under; 1. The impugned Ex-party order U/s 143(1) dated 23/01/2023 which confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) through Appellate order as well as complete proceedings and further issued Notices in respect thereto are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons (grounds), against the provisions and procedure as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings and orders are invalid, illegal and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,29,482/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the appellant preferred an appeal, before CIT(A)/NFAC against the order u/s 154 dated 27.01.2023 upholding the intimation u/s 143(1) of the act wherein the leave encashment u/s 10(10AA) of the act was restricted to Rs 3,00,000/- against Rs. 20,29,482/- as claimed by the appellant thus making an addition of Rs. 17,29,482/- to the total income of the appellant and computing the total income at Rs. 35,71,060/-. Further the CIT(A) vide his order dated 29/10/2024 upheld the order passed u/s 154 dated 27.01.2023, and aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred this instant appeal by raising following grounds:- Grounds of Appeal:- 1. The impugned Ex-party order U/s 143(1) dated 23/01/2023 which confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) through Appellate order as well as complete proceedings and further issued Notices in respect thereto are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons (grounds), against the provisions and procedure as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings and orders are invalid, illegal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come tax act it is clear that an employee of the Central Government or a State Government as the cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit at the time of his retirement whether on superannuation or otherwise shall not be included in the total income of the assessee. Below the pertinent part of the section 10(10AA) of the act:- Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- . . (10AA) (i) any payment received by an employee of the Central Government or a State Government as the cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit at the time of his retirement whether on superannuation or otherwise ; PRAYER In view of the above submission, humbly prayed; 1. The all Addition made should be deleted, 2. That Interest charged u/s 234A,234B & 234C, 234D should be deleted. 3. Any other relief as your honour deem fit for necessary in the interest of assessee. 6. The ld. AR of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the same is extracted here in above in para 2. Thus, contention of the ld. CIT(A) has no leg to stand. Now coming to the issue as to allowability of the claim between Rs. 3 or to Rs. 20,29,482/- as claimed by the assessee, the bench noted that the limit of leave encashment to be claimed by the assessee was revised to Rs. 25,00,000/- as specified vide notification No. 31/2023/F. NO. 200/3/2023-ITA-1 dated 24th May, 2023. Therefore, the assessee is eligible to claim Rs. 20,29,482/- as deduction which was restricted to Rs. 3 lac as the limit was revised on 24th May 2023. Since the issue has already been decided by the bench vide ITA No. 408/JP/2022 and same was followed in ITA no. 542/JP/2023. The finding recorded by the bench in ITA no. 408/JP/2022 reads as under : 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee relying the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Union of India in the case of Kamal Kumar Kalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors in WP(C) 11846/2019 dated 08.11.2019 wherein the court has given following directions :- "8. We are however of the, prima facie, view....