IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa, Vs. CIT(A)/NFAC, 98-LIG Flat DDA, Flat Pocket New Delhi

3, Paschimpur, Paschim Vihar, West Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAAPW3032C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa (Assessee)

Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR With ITA No.5915/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta, Vs. ITO, B-203, Swami Dayanand Ward-67(1), Apartments, Plot No.5, New Delhi Sector-6, Dwarka, Delhi PAN: ACOPG6634J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta (Assessee)

Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 ORDER The instant two appeals involve the twin assessees, namely, Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa and Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta. They have filed ITA Nos.5897/Del/2025 and 5915/Del/2025 for assessment years

2020-21 and 2021-22 against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated 24.02.2023 and 25.01.2023 having DIN and Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050089422(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1049079377(1) involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

3. It transpires during the course of hearing that both the assessees’ sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeals challenge the learned lower authorities’ action denying section 10(10AA) leave encashment exemption thereby holding that they are not entitled for the same since employed in bank and not a central or state government department.

4. It is next noticed that recently the tribunal in Ram Charan Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, in ITA No. 408/JPR/2022 dated 27.06.2023 has already rejected the Revenue’s very stand as under:

“3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee who has retired is a bank employee and has claimed an amount of Rs. 6,97,100/- being leave encashment received as exempt u/s 10(10AA) of the 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 assessee.

Hence, this appeal.

4. Aggrieved from the order of the AO, CPC assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:

"5.2.2 I have considered the facts of the case as also the submissions of the appellant. The appellant is a retiree from Bank and not any government organization. Here, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Kalia v/s Union of India (2020) 268 Taxman 398/313 CTR 779 (Delhi) (HC) dated 08.11.2019, where the issue under consideration was whether the appellant being employee of Public sector undertaking (PSU) Ram Charan Gupta vs. ITO and Nationalized banks can be treated as government employee from the purposes of exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the I.T. Act. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-

"The petitioner, who were the employees of the Public Sector undertaking and Nationalized banks, filed writ contending that they were discriminated against Central Government and State Government. The Central Government and State Government employees are granted complete exemption in respect of the cash equivalent of the leave salary for the period of earned leave standing to their credit at the time of their retirement. Dismissing the petition the Court held that merely because Public Sector Undertaking and Nationalized Banks are considered as State under article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of entertainment of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and for enforcement of fundamental right under the Constitution, it does not follow that the employees of such Pu