TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CA (for ITA Nos. 1757, 1778, 1948, 1949, 1950 For the Revenue : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Dept. ORDER PER BENCH These are the appeals filed by the various assessee's challenging the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi in respect of the A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22. For the sake of easy reference, the details of the appeals as well as the issues involved are tabulated below: S.No. Appeal No. A.Y. Date of order of NFAC Reasons Issues involved 1. ITA No. 1742/Bang/2026 2020-21 24/02/2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation. Retrenchment compensation 2. ITA No. 1743/Bang/2026 2020-21 24/02/2026 Dismissed on merits and held that the rejection order made u/s. 154 is in order. Retrenchment compensation & Leave encashment. 3. ITA No. 1745/Bang/2026 2021-22 27/02/2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation. No claim made either u/s. 10(10B) or 10(10C) in the return of income. Retrenchment compensation 4. ITA No. 1757/Bang/2026 2020-21 28/02/2026 Dismissed on merits by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 Dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as of the maintainability. Retrenchment compensation and Leave encashment 15. ITA No. 2154/Bang/2026 2020-21 27/03/2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation and also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 and dismissed the appeal. Retrenchment compensation. 16. ITA No. 2215/Bang/2026 2020-21 29/03/2026 Dismissed on the ground that the compensation is not a retrenchment by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 514 and also by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 Dismissed the leave encashment by relying on the earlier limit prescribed. Retrenchment compensation and Leave encashment 17. ITA No. 2216/Bang/2026 2020-21 31/03/2026 Dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as no appealable issue was raised by the assessee after observing that the assessee can file a revised return and seeking a condonation petition u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act Retrenchment compensation 18. ITA No. 2228/Bang/2026 2020-21 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. During the disputed assessment years, the exemption available u/s. 10(10AA) is restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/- and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs. 25,00,000/- by way of Gazette Notification dated 24/05/2023. The assessee's had now disputed the restricted amount based on the enhancement granted by the Government, by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. 6. The assessee's had filed their return of income showing the part of the retrenchment compensation as taxable income and also claimed the leave encashment of Rs. 3,00,000/-. In some cases no claim was made. The said returns were processed by the CPC and the returns were accepted and intimations u/s. 143(1) were made. Thereafter the order of the Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 379 was known to the assessee's and based on that, the assessee's filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay and also enclosed applications to condone the said delays. Some assesses filed rectification applications before the AO which were dismissed. Against which appeals are filed. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the appeals filed by the assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal on the ground that the compensation received is not eligible for exemption u/s. 10(10B) of the Act by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 514. In the appeal in ITA No. 2151/Bang/2026, the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as maintainability. In the appeal in ITA No. 2154/Bang/2026, the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed on the ground of limitation and also relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 284 ITR 323 in the case of Goetze India Ltd. In the appeal in ITA No. 2215/Bang/2026, the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed on the ground that the compensation is not the retrenchment by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 514 and also on the ground that the assessee cannot raise for the first time before the appellate authority by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 284 ITR 323 in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Similarly, the leave encashment was rejected by saying that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. In the appeal in ITA Nos. 2216 & 2228/Bang/2026, the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation and also observe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the issue has to be looked into based on the provisions and simply it cannot be rejected by citing the technicalities. The respective Ld.ARs further submitted that in all the cases, the assessee's had claimed the deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the Act thereby the deduction has been granted for Rs. 5 Lakhs whereas they are entitled for deduction of the entire amount u/s. 10(10B) of the Act and therefore it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee's had not claimed the deduction in their return of income. The respective Ld.ARs further submitted that the assessee's had claimed the deduction under a wrong provision since the employer had deducted the TDS and if the said claim is not in order, in order to render justice, the AOs can modify the said claim and grant the deduction under the correct provision and therefore prayed to consider the said facts and allow the appeals filed by the assessee's. The respective Ld.ARs submitted that even the AOs are not authorized to grant the deduction other than the one claimed in the return of income and also not filed a revised return, the appellate authorities i.e. this Tribunal is having enormous powers to entertain a plea and if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals, the merits involved are that the assessee's were not granted the benefit u/s. 10(10B) of the Act since the assessee's themselves voluntarily filed their return of income and claimed the deduction only u/s. 10(10C) of the Act. The said return was processed and the return was accepted as such. Now the assessee's had claimed the deduction under the correct provision 10(10B) of the Act based on the order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and the said claims were rejected by the Ld.CIT(A)s on the ground of delay and maintainability. In some cases, the Ld.CIT(A)s hold that there is no mistake in the intimation made u/s. 143(1) and therefore, the proper course of action to be taken by the assessee's are that they have to file a revised return by claiming the deduction and got the delay condoned from the authorities. In some cases, the Ld.CIT(A)s had rejected the appeals on the ground that the new plea cannot be raised for the first time before them. In some cases, rectification applications filed by the assessee's were dismissed as the intimation is in accordance with the return of income filed by the assessee. 13. We have considered the facts and also the order of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deductions. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) had also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 284 ITR 323 in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT and rejected the appeals on the ground of maintainability. We have also gone through the above cited judgment and we do not find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restricted the powers of the appellate authorities. In fact, the judgment had restricted the power of the AO and therefore the above said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the assessee's had mistakenly claimed the deduction in the original return of income and therefore there is no question of saying that the assessee's cannot raise the issue for the first time before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the department had accepted that the benefit should be granted in respect of the employees of BSNL and therefore the plea that they are not workman to get the benefit is not correct. Therefore, the orders of the Ld.CIT(A)s are liable to be interfered. 16. Similarly, the other issue of exemption claimed on the leave encashment was also addressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the above referred judgment by holding that the re....