Mohdhussain Gulamhussain Qureshi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Summary: The Ahmedabad SMC Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of Mohdhussain Gulamhussain Qureshi for Assessment Year 2020-21 against the National Faceless Appeal Centre order dated 15 March 2023. The dispute concerned the restriction of leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to ₹3,00,000 for a retired non-government employee, despite the assessee claiming ₹7,07,664. The assessee challenged the restriction and relied on coordinate Bench decisions addressing the revised exemption ceiling.
Both parties accepted that the issue was covered by the Ahmedabad Tribunal’s decision in Goverdhan D Bhambhani v. ITO. The reproduced decision considered CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 dated 24 May 2023, raising the leave encashment exemption ceiling to ₹25,00,000, and referred to decisions involving Govind Chhatwani, Ram Charan Gupta, Devendra Kumar Gupta and the Delhi High Court proceedings in Kamal Kumar Kalia. Those authorities were relied upon in addressing claims for earlier assessment years.
Finding no change in the factual matrix or legal proposition, the Tribunal followed the earlier decision and allowed the assessee’s appeal. The order was pronounced on 7 April 2026.
Cases Discussed
- Goverdhan D Bhambhani Vs. ITO — ITA No. 289/Ahd/2025, 28.07.2025
- Neelam Gupta Vs. Addl./JCIT — ITA No. 81/Del/2025, 21.04.2025
- Ram Dev Daiya Vs. ITO — ITA No. 1280/JPR/2025, 01.01.2026
- Govind Chatwani / Govind Chhatwani Vs. CIT(Appeals) — ITA No. 385/JP/2023, 31.10.2023
- Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs. CIT(Appeals) — M.A. No. 49/JP/2023, 18.02.2025
- Ram Charan Gupta — ITA No. 408/JP/2022
- Kamal Kumar Kalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. — W.P.(C) 11846/2019, 08.11.2019
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Any payment received by an employees of the Central Govt. or State Govt. as the cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect of the period of Earned Leave at his credit at the time of his retirement(whether) on superannuation or otherwise.
2. Any such payment (as given in para (i) above) received by an employee of her than employee Central or State Govt. in respect of so much of period of EL as does not exceed 1o months calculated on the basis of the average salary drawn by the employee during the period of 10 months immediately preceding his retirement (Section 10(10AA) of the IT Act 1961.
3. The issue related to restriction of leave encashment to Rs.3,00,000/- u/s.10(10AA) of the Act. The assessee, a non Government retired employee, claimed deduction of entire leave encashment of Rs.7,07,664/- as deduction u/s.10(10AA). The Assessing Officer vide page 12 of 143(1) order restricted the claim by stating that “deduction u/s.10(10AA) in respect of leave encashment cannot be more than Rs.3,00,000/-, if employer category is other than “Central and State Government” and hence the deduction claimed u/s.10(10AA) is allowed to the extent of Rs.3,00,00/-
4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee file appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. At the time of hearing assessee relied upon the following decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT.
1. ITA no.289/Ahd/2025 dated 28.07.2025 in the case of Goverdhan D Bhambhani Vs. ITO
2. ITA Nos.81/Del/2025 dated 21.04.2025 in the case of Neelam Gupta Vs. Addl./JCIT
3. ITA No.1280/JPR/2025 dated 01.01.2026 in the case of Ram Dev Daiya Vs. ITO
6. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Goverdhan D Bhambhani Vs. ITO for AY 2020-21 dated 28.07.2025. For the sake of ready reference, the operative portion of said order is reproduced as under:
3. 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 (1044) 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 salary in respect of the period of earned leave at their credit at the time of their retirement, whether superannuation or otherwise, hereby specifies the amount of Rs. 25,00,000 (twenty-five lakhs rupees only) as the limit in relation to employees mentioned in that sub-clause who retire, whether on superannuation or otherwise.
2. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2023.
[Notification No. 31/2023/F. No. 200/3/2023-ITA-I]
SOURABH JAIN, Under Secy.
Explanatory Memorandum: It is hereby certified that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification.”
4. Thus in view of such notification section 10(10AA) sub section (i) & (ii) both are at par & since it is clear that as per explanatory memorandum that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this notification.
Thus sec 10(10AA) (i) & (ii) both are at par (with RETROSPECTIVE effect & even the private employee on retirement are entitled for such higher limit of Rs. 25,00,000/-or actual amount received whichever is less; to claim u/sec 10 (10AA) of Act.
It is requested to kindly consider & grant relief. Under similar circumstances number of decisions already granted by Jaipur Bench; details as below:-
(1) Govind Chatwani, Appeal No. ITA No. 385/JP/2023 dated 31.10.2023 copy as enclosed (Page 2108)
(2) Devendra kumar Gupta M.A. No. 49/JP/2023 dated 18.02.2025 copy as enclosed.”
6. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities and requested to confirm the disallowance.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. This issue of deduction u/s. 10(10AA)(ii) is no more res- integra based on the decisions passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Govind Chhatwani Vs. CIT(Appeals) in ITA No. 385/JP/2023 dated 31-10-2023 wherein it is held as follows:
“7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the apple of discord in this case that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 17,68,479/- as leave encashment which was claimed in the return of income filed as exempt u/s 10(10AA) of the Act. The CPC and ld. CIT(A) contended that in the light of this specific notification being not issued the leave encashment allowable up to Rs. 3,00,000/- only whereas we note from the submission of the assessee that the assessee has relied upon the notification No. 31/2023/F.No. 200/3/2023-ITA-1 dated 24th May, 2023 and submitted that the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- increased on account of leave salary is applicable and to be considered in the light of fact that government has issued this notification belatedly. The assessee has already claimed the leave salary as exemption the benefit should be given to the assessee. The similar issue has been decided by the bench in the case of Ram Charan Gupta in ITA No. 408/JP/2022 wherein the bench has already held as under:-
“8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee relying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Union of India in the case of Kamal Kumar Kalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors in WP(C) 11846/2019 dated 08.11.2019 wherein the court has given following directions:-
“8. We are however of the, prima facie, view that the grievances of the petitioner with regard to exemption limit under Clause (ii) of Section 10 (10AA) not being raised since 1998, appears to be justified. This is so because over the decades, the pay-scales admissible to government servants, and even employees of the Public Sector Undertaking and Nationalised Banks and all others have been upwardly revised, keeping in view, the financial growth in the country as well as on account of rising inflation. The last drawn salaries have increased manifold since time and notification issued under Clause (ii) of Section 10(10AA) was lastly issued, as taken note of hereinabove, on 31.05.2002. We therefore, issue notice to the respondents limited to this aspect.
9. Issue notice, learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Respondents should file counter affidavits be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
” 8.1 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. 6,97,100/- 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. 6,97,100/-. 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.”
On being consistent to the said finding, we held that the assessee is entitled to get the deduction as claimed in the return of income u/s 10(10AA) of the Act as the limit has been increased from 3 lac to 25 lacs.
8. Further this decision is followed in the case of Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs. CIT(Appeals) in M.A. No. 49/JP/2023 dated 18-02-2025. Thus respectfully following the above decisions, the restricting the deduction u/s. 10(10AA) of Rs. 4,65,404/- made by the lower authorities are not sustainable in law. Therefore the same is liable to be deleted.
8. In the absence of any change in factual matrix and legal proposition brought to our notice, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.04.2026.
