IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.8770/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Satish Chandra Tyagi, Commissioner of Income Tax A-601, lakevie Apptt. Plot (Appeals), Hans Bhawan, No.17, Paschim Vihar, Vs Wing,-2, I. P. Estate, Sunder Vihar West, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110087 PAN-ABGPT2521E Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee by Shri Satish Chandra Tyagi, Assessee in person.

Respondent/Revenue by Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

ORDER

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 28.08.2024 arising out of rectification order dated 29.10.2021 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

Recently the Central Board of Direct Taxes Suomotu revised the limit for deduction u/s 10(10AA) of the Act and the revised limit now stood at Rs. 25,00,000 as specified vide notification no. 31/2023 issued by the ministry of finance. Since the leave encashment amount as claimed by the assessee is amount to Rs. 837542/- which is below the revised limit of leave encashment exempt prescribed by the Board, the assessee is eligible to claim of deduction of said Rs 837542/- Based on these observations the ld. AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee u/s.10(10AA) of the Act within the revised limit as prescribed. In terms of these observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed CASE LAWS 1. Vijay Kumar Jain VS Income-tax Officer,Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. 2. Govind Chhatwani VS CIT (Appeals), JAIPUR 3. Ram Charan Gupta VS ITO WARD 4(2) JAIPUR 4. Neelam Gupta, VS CIT DELHI BENCH

3. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The ld. DR placed upon the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee appearing in person has placed on record and a written submission in support of his claim. The only issue contested by the appellant is regarding the denial of its claim of deduction under section u/s 10(10AA) of the Act and its restriction to the earlier notified limit of Rs.3 lakhs. It is a case of the assessee that in terms of CBDT notification No.31 of 2023, it is entitled for claim of deduction upto the maximum amount of Rs.25 lakhs. It is accordingly contesting the order of the ld. CIT(A) which has confirmed the disallowance made by the CPC.

4. We have taken judicial notice of the orders of Co-ordinate Bench of the different Benches of the Tribunal vis Chandigarh, Pune (ITA No.1781/Pune/2025), Jaipur (ITA No.385/Jp/2023) as well as those pronounced by this Tribunal. Thus, we have noted that this Tribunal in the case of Neelam Gupta in ITA No.81/Del/2025 on identical facts allowed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:-

“….3. It transpires during the course of hearing that assessee's sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities action denying section 10(10AA) leave encashment exemption thereby holding that she is not entitled for the same since employed with Bank of Baroda 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

27.6.2023 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