Delhi High Court - Orders
Rakesh Sethi vs Pcit-15, Delhi on 18 July, 2022
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10779/2022
RAKESH SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rano Jain with Mr.Venketesh
Chaurasai, Advocates.
versus
PCIT-15, DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, standing counsel
for the Revenue with Ms.Mansie Jain,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 18.07.2022 C.M.No.31324/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.10779/2022 & C.M.No.31323/2022 Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th March, 2022 passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] for the assessment year 2018-19.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner superannuated in financial year 2017-18 and had received various retirement benefits including leave encashment of Rs.12,10,352/-. She states that the petitioner being a retired Government employee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA) of the Act for the entire amount received as leave Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.07.2022 16:00:51 encashment i.e. Rs.12,10,352/-. She, however, states that when the petitioner filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19 on 10th July, 2018, he claimed an exemption of only Rs.3,00,000/- only under Section 10(10AA) of the Act following the amount given in the Form 16 issued by the petitioner's employer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the return of income of the petitioner was processed and an order dated 8th October, 2018 under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued. She states that it was only later that he realized that the employer had only provided an exemption of Rs.3,00,000/- only and not of the entire amount of Rs.12,10,352/- which was received as leave encashment and so the exemption under Section 10(10AA) of the Act was short claimed by Rs.9,10,352/-. She further states that the Petitioner then filed a revision application dated 12th September, 2019 under Section 264 of the Act before the respondent along with an application for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the revision application was rejected by the respondent vide the impugned order on the ground of delay in filing of application and stated that the petitioner should have filed revised income tax return. She states that there was a delay in filing of the revision application as in the beginning of 2019, the petitioner's wife was diagnosed with blood cancer, to which she she ultimately succumbed on 17th September, 2020.
Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, standing counsel for revenue who appears on advance notice states that the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act was itself not maintainable in view of the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Gas Trading Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.07.2022 16:00:51 MANU/GJ/1898/2016.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petioner submits that the present writ petition is maintainable. In support of her submission, she relies upon the judgment of this Court in Vijay Gupta vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Delhi- XII & Anr., (2016) 386 ITR 643.
Issue notice. Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel for revenue accepts notice. Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondent within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 28th November, 2022.
MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 18, 2022 KA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.07.2022 16:00:51