9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 250 - AT - Income TaxAllowance of actuarial valuation of privilege leave encashment - Held that - Disallowance was made by the AO by invoking the provisions of clause (f) of section 43B and the same was deleted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. v. UOI (2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA High Court ) wherein it was held that insertion of clause (f) in section 43B is unconstitutional. Subsequently, the Hon ble Apex Court 2008 (9) TMI 921 - SUPREME COURT has stayed the operation of this judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. v. UOI (supra) and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) by following this judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court cannot be approved. The legal position that now stands is that clause (f) of section 43B is very much on the statute book and therefore, if the assessee has not made payment of leave encashment provision in the present year, deduction on account of that provision cannot be allowed as per provisions of clause (f) of section 43B. It is not the case of assessee that payment was made for provision of leave encashment - Decided in favour of revenue. Allowance of claim towards provision for bad and doubtful debts - Held that - We find that as per assessment order, it is the objection of the AO that the details as per requirement of Rule 6ABA are not furnished before him. As some details are made available before us, but as per the certificate given in the PB, all these details were filed before the CIT (Appeals) and the same were not filed before the AO. We also find that no remand report has been obtained by the ld. CIT (Appeals) from the AO. Under these facts, we find force in the contention of the ld. DR of Revenue that this matter should go back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO on this issue. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision in light of our above observations, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.. Disallowance made with regard to excess claim of salary - Held that - Letter dated 24.7.2010 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services in respect of revision of pay & allowances of all Regional Rural Banks employees w.e.f. 1.11.2007. So, on the basis of communication received from Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, the Board of assessee bank as per its Resolution dated 31.8.2010 has decided to make payment of arrears for the period from 1.11.2007 to 31.7.2010. No doubt, this date of Board Resolution and the letter from Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance is subsequent to the present accounting year i.e., accounting year 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 but it is also true that these dates are prior to the date of filing of return of income by the assessee and therefore, the liability has crystallised prior to the date of filing of return of income. In our considered opinion, under these facts, provision should be made in the accounts for the year which were not finalised at that point of time i.e., crystallisation of liability - Decided in favour of assessee Amortization of premium paid on Government securities - Held that - The assessee is entitled to deduction on account of amortization of premium on Govt. securities and therefore no interference is called for in the order of the learned CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Actuarial valuation of privilege leave encashment. 2. Provision for bad and doubtful debts. 3. Excess claim of salary including salary arrears. 4. Amortization of premium paid on Government securities. Detailed Analysis: 1. Actuarial Valuation of Privilege Leave Encashment: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the actuarial valuation of privilege leave encashment, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's stay on the Calcutta High Court's judgment in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. v. UOI, 292 ITR 470. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed the Calcutta High Court's judgment, which was declared unconstitutional. However, since the Apex Court stayed this judgment, the Tribunal concluded that clause (f) of section 43B remains valid and applicable. Consequently, the deduction for leave encashment provision, which was not paid in the present year, is disallowed. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's decision, allowing Revenue's ground No.2. 2. Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim without complete details and without obtaining a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal found that the details required as per Rule 6ABA were not furnished before the AO but were submitted to the CIT(A). As no remand report was obtained, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining the AO's remand report, allowing Revenue's ground No.3 for statistical purposes. 3. Excess Claim of Salary Including Salary Arrears: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim for salary arrears related to previous financial years. The Tribunal noted that the Board Resolution and the Government of India's letter, which crystallized the liability, were dated after the accounting year but before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal held that since the liability crystallized before the return filing date, the provision should be made in the accounts for the relevant year. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting Revenue's ground No.4. 4. Amortization of Premium Paid on Government Securities: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the amortization of premium on Government securities, contrary to CBDT Instruction 17/2008 and the decision in Vijaya Bank vs Addl. CIT, 187 ITR 541. The Tribunal found that similar issues were previously decided in favor of the assessee in its own cases for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10. The Tribunal saw no difference in the present year's facts and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting Revenue's grounds Nos.5 and 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of leave encashment and remitting the provision for bad and doubtful debts back for fresh consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on salary arrears and amortization of premium on Government securities.
|
