2023 (5) TMI 1455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 3,00,000/- (Against actual receipt of Rs. 12,09,600/- as employee of M/s. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer (A Rajasthan State Government Employee). 2. Any other matter with prior permission of the Chair. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who has retired is an employee of M/s. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and has claimed an amount of Rs. 12,09,600/- being leave encashment received as exempt under section 10(10AA) of the IT Act. However, the AO, CPC while processing the return of income has allowed exemption of only Rs. 3,00,000/- as against 100% exemption claimed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of AO, CPC, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A), who also dismissed the appeal of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n and supply of electricity in 11 districts of Rajasthan. It is seen that the appellant has merely claimed that he is working as a State Government Employee whereas the pension and other emoluments have been issued by AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. The same is also appearing as a Public Sector Undertaking on the official website of Comptroller & Auditor General in cag.gov.in and also under Rajasthan PSU's in the website indianpsu.com and other publicly available documents. Hence, there is no confusion that the company Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd is a State Government Public Sector Undertaking and appellant is an employee of this State PSU. No evidence to the contrary has been furnished despite opportunity granted. Here, reliance is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5.1.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/S ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and, therefore, exemption under S.10(10AA)(i) was not available, and assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.1.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA) to Rs 3,00,000/- is found to be in order. These grounds of appeal are, therefore, dismissed." After having meticulously gone through the findings of the ld. CIT (A), I noticed that it is an undisputed fact that assessee had retired as an employee o....