TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of corrigendum dated 3.7.2020 issued by the CIT-1, Chandigarh establishes the fact that the assessee had applied for approval of the said scheme, which was granted by the authority concerned on 28.2.2012. The Revenue did not dispute the contents of the said corrigendum. Hence, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO, wrongly holding that the scheme was not approved by the concerned authority. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Disallowance of premium paid towards leave encashment scheme - assessee made payment by creating LIC based fund - AO made addition of the said amount on the ground that no actual payment was made to any employee - HEL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (for short 'the CIT(A)], pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of ₹ 57,18,540/-. Since the case was selected for scrutiny, the AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 7.8.2013 and notice u/s. 142(1) on 30.9.2014. In response thereof, the authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished the requisite details. The AO completed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of leave salary contribution amounting to ₹ 91,13,601/- without appreciating the fact that the deduction of leave salary is allowed only on actual payment to employees as per clause (f) of section 43B. However, the leave salary was not actually paid to the employees which does not amount to payment to an employee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without discussing the merits of the issue involved and by relying only on previous order of CIT(A) in case of the assessee, which were also not accepted by the department but further appeal could not be preferred due to the tax effect, which was le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then CIT(A) Ludhiana in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Ld. Counsel further invited our attention to the copy of corrigendum dated 03.07.2020 issued by the CIT-1, which shows that the competent authority accorded approval Employees Group Gratuity Scheme vide order dated 09.06.2020 w.e.f. 28.02.2012. 4. So far as the addition on account of disallowance of Leave Salary Contribution is concerned, the Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition by following his own order dated 22.07.2019 passed in assessee's appeal No. 03/16-17 for the assessment year 2013-14. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that both the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed this ground of appeal of the assessee by following his own order passed in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2015-16. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ground raised by the Revenue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 6. The second issue relates to disallowance of premium paid towards leave encashment scheme. We notice that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
