TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, therefore, the view of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed as the revenue failed to bring any judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on this issue. Addition on account of provision of gratuity and leave encashment - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that the payments were actually made in the year under appeal, therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, we do not see any infirmity in to the finding of CIT(A) and the same is hereby affirmed. This ground of the revenue s appeal is rejected. - ITA No.300/Ind/2018 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2019 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Smt. Ashima Gupta, D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave to add to, deduct from or otherwise amend the above ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are that case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 23.3.2016. While framing the assessment, the A.O. made addition of ₹ 47,90,498/- on account of the excessive provision in respect of leave encashment and gratuity. The A.O. also made addition of ₹ 2,10,395/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source. Further, addition was made in respect of provision of gratuity and leave encashment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court, the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act of ₹ 16,95,85,384/- is hereby Confirmed. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is Dismissed. 6. In view of the above, ground No.1 of the revenue s appeal is dismissed. 7. Ground No.2 is against deleting the addition made on account of excess provision of gratuity and leave encashment. 8. Ld. CIT(DR) supported the order of the A.O. and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee opposed these submissions and submitted that all payments have been made during the year under consideration and in view of the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. made addition on a wrong appreciation of fact that no details have been submitted about the payments and it is not ascertainable as to how this claim of ₹ 5,89,91,207/- is allowable. He submitted the complete details of payments was filed vide letter dated 22.6.2015 and 11.8.2015 wherein it was also stated that deduction is claimed on the basis of actual payment. The attention was also drawn to the audit report for the financial year 2006-07 2007-08, wherein it was submitted that this is a pre-existing liability which was disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, [or] Shall be allowed (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him. 19. The Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that the payments were actually made in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
