2025 (7) TMI 1590 - AT - Income Tax

Additions made towards taxable Gratuity and taxable Leave Encashment - denial of exemption claimed u/s. 10(1) and 10(10AA) -addition on the ground that the assessee is not a Government Employee - eligibility of proportionate benefit of exemption - HELD THAT -During the year under consideration assessee has received Gratuity and Leave Encashment as part of his retirement benefits. Assessee has rendered service for 27 years with MSEB and 12 years with MSEDCL. Assessee deserves to get proportionate benefit for the period of services rendered to the State Government i.e. MSEB from 29.07.1978 to 31.05.2005. See MOHAN SHRINIWAS BHISE VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 SANGLI 2024 (11) TMI 1296 - ITAT PUNE Since the details of working provided by the assessee have not been verified by the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer the issue is remitted back to the file of ld. JAO for carrying out necessary verification and examination of the details. Ld. JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and allow the proportionate benefit to the assessee. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether delay in filing appeal beyond the prescribed period can be condoned on "reasonable cause".Whether gratuity and leave encashment received by an employee retiring from a public sector undertaking (PSU) formerly part of a State Government entity are eligible for exemption under sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on a proportionate basis corresponding to the period of service rendered with the State Government.Whether the Assessing Officer's disallowance of exemption on the ground that the assessee is not a Government employee is sustainable.Whether the matter requires remand for verification of the proportionate exemption claims based on service tenure with the State Government and PSU.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The delay of 355 days in filing the appeal is condoned as the assessee demonstrated "reasonable cause" supported by ongoing litigation and professional advice, relying on the principle established in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.The assessee is entitled to claim exemption for retirement gratuity and leave encashment on a "proportionate/prorata basis" corresponding to the period of service rendered with the State Government entity (MSEB), with the balance amount eligible for exemption subject to prescribed limits under sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Act for services rendered with the PSU (MSEDCL).The Assessing Officer's disallowance on the sole ground that the assessee is not a Government employee is not sustainable because the exemption entitlement must be considered proportionate to the period of Government service.The issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for "verification and examination" of the details submitted by the assessee regarding the proportionate exemption claim, with directions to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provisions under sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provide exemption for retirement gratuity and leave encashment, respectively, subject to prescribed limits.The Court relied on precedent from a coordinate bench of the Tribunal which held that employees who served partly under a State Government and partly under a PSU incorporated under the Companies Act are entitled to exemption on a proportionate basis corresponding to their tenure with each employer.The Court recognized the principle of "reasonable cause" for delay condonation as established by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing that ongoing litigation and professional advice can constitute sufficient cause.The decision reflects a doctrinal approach to tax exemption claims for retirement benefits where employment spans different entities with varying tax statuses, requiring a prorated assessment rather than a blanket disallowance.No dissent or concurring opinion was recorded.