9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. It is true that after the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Kanwar Rana [ 2016 (6) TMI 687 - ITAT DELHI] the assessee became aware of the eligibility of the deduction available u/s 10(10AA) of the Act but that was on 16.06.2016 and the rectification application has been moved on 28.07.2020. Considering from all possible angles the application of the assessee is barred by limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred against the order dated 12.01.2023 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. The grievance of the assessee reads as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in: 1. Upholding the validity of order dated 13-11-2020, u/s 154 of the Act, which s without jurisdiction; 2. confirming the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act claiming exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the Act on account of leave encashment amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/-. This application was dismissed by the AO who was of the opinion that a fresh claim can only be made through a revised return of income. 5. The assessee challenged the order of the AO before the CIT(A) and vehemently contended that pursuant to the decision in the case of Ram Kanwar R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Ram Kanwar Rana (supra), the assessee became eligible for the deduction u/s 10(10AA) of the Act and since the assessee had not claimed any deduction in his return of income. The mistake should have been rectified by the CIT(A). Strong reliance is placed on several judicial decisions placed in the paper book. 8. Per contra, the DR strongly supported the finding of the CIT(A) and stated that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the return, there was no mistake apparent from record which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the Counsel are on a different set of facts mostly on the eligibility of the claim of deduction u/s 10(10AA) of the Act but the case of the assessee is the claim u/s 154 of the Act which according to our considered opinion is barred by limitation. We decline to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
