9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Encashment – disallowance as not paid before the due date for filing of the return - Held that:- Following the decision in case of M/s Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs CIT [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] provision made for leave encashment cannot be taken as a contingent liability and hence it is an ascertained liability. However, the legislature by way of amendment restricts such deduction in the case of leave encashment unless it is actually paid in that particular financial year - order of the CIT(A) is set aside and restore the issue to the file of the AO to verify whether the amount has been paid before filing of the return or not - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. LIC Group Gratuity Scheme payments – disallowance as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was unilateral. 3. The facts relating to raise this ground are that the assessee engaged in the business of offset printing. During the course of assessment proceedings, books of account were produced by the assessee, from which the AO noticed that the assessee had debited Rs. 12,18,718/- as bad debts and ledger extracts for the same were produced. The AO was of the view that as per the ledger extracts, there was no description as to why the debts had gone bad. He, therefore, made the addition of the said amount. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Before the CIT(A), the learned AR of the assessee stated that in the opinion of the assessee, the debts were not recoverable and as per procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s general in nature and, therefore, the same is not required to be adjudicated by us. 10. Ground No. 2 reads as follows:- The learned CIT(A) erred in conf irming the action of the AO in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 73,626/- being provision made towards leave encashment. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the said liability accrued during the previous year and is allowable as a deduction. 11. The AO disallowed the assessee s claim for deduction of Rs. 73,626/- being provision made towards leave encashment, on the ground that the same was not paid before the due date for filing of the return of income. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roved by the CIT as per the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act. The AO, therefore, disallowed the said claim of the assessee by holding that in the absence of any proof that the scheme was approved by the CIT and also relying on the decision in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (Del.) 285 ITR 123, the claim was disallowed. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO as no evidence was produced before him. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 15. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. We find that the issue under consideration is covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench in assessee s own case for AY 2004-05 2003-04 in ITA Nos. 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile computing income chargeable to tax. The main contention of the revenue is that u/s 36(1)(v) the payment made by the assessee as employer could be allowed only in respect of approval gratuity fund. Since the group gratuity scheme is not approved by CIT, according to the revenue, it cannot be allowed. However, the contention of the assessee is that in view of the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Warner Hindustan Ltd. it has to be allowed. We have carefully gone through the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Warner Hindustan Ltd. In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the said sum does not represent the income of the appellant. 18. The CIT(A) wrongly held in his order at para 7.2 that the said ground is covered by his own order. The said para is reproduced below:- 7.2 I have considered the arguments of the appellant as well as facts of the case. This issue has been decided by me vide my order in ITA No. 371/DC-16(1)/CIT(A)V/2007-08 dated 16/04/2010 in the case of the appellant. Since the issue involved is identical, the decision as outlined in the aforementioned order also applies to the current case. Accordingly, I hold that the addition made by the AO is correct and does not require any interference . 19. Since there is no such issue in the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
