2026 (4) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me to Rs. 300000/-. 2. The CBDT Notification in S.O. 2276(E) Notification No. 31/2023/F. No. 200/3/2023-ITA-I dated 24.05.2023 is with Retrospectively as made clarified by Board and thus applies on appellant. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair." 3. Assessee retired from services of M/s RBI (Samadhan) Unit handling HRO operations for RBI Region in F.Y. 2019-20 (on 31.05.2019). Received Rs. 15,90,734/- as "Leave Encashment" benefit in terms of sec 10(10AA) of Act. Return of Income was filed on 07.12.2020 (Later Revised on 08.01.2021) claiming whole of such amount of Leave Encashment of Rs. 15,90,734/- u/sec 10(10AA)(ii) of Act. While Assessment u/sec 143(1)(a) of Act dated 08.12.2021 the amount of such....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has disallowed / Restricted the same to Rs. 3,00,000/- for the reason that Assessee is since not a Central Govt/State Govt employee: thus, in view of provision of sec 10(10AA) of Act sub section (ii) to said section has restricted the Amount of leave Encashment of Rs. 15,90,734/-10(10AA) to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Maximum) against claimed at Rs. 15,90,734/-. The CBDT's Notification dated 24.05.2023 (No. 31/2023/F.No. 200/3/2023-ITA-1) (copy enclosed Page no. 1) clearly states that "S.O. 2276(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (10AA) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government, having regard to the maximum amount receivable by its employees as cash equivalent of leave....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r condonation of delay. The reasons appear to be genuine, hence the delay is condoned. Beside this, it is pertinent to note that the assessee received Rs. 15,90,734/- as leave encashment benefit in terms of section 10(10AA) of the Act. The Ld. AR's contention 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. It appears that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of Ramesan P. A. vs. Union of India (WP(C) No. 28983 of 2021 order dated 29.01.2024 categorically held as under: "5. The Government should have revised the upper limit, which was fixed under the not....