PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that leave encashment is allowable on actual payment basis, following the Supreme Court decision in Exide Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction on actual payment.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the addition of provisions for leave encashment without allowing actual expenditure. The Revenue's position was that the Principal CIT directed to bring to tax provisions for leave encashment.
What were the issues?
Whether provisions for leave encashment are deductible on actual payment basis, and whether the CIT(A) and Pr. CIT erred in upholding additions without considering actual payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Union of India v. Exide Industries146 citing425 ITR 1 · 2020 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA
O R D E R Per Bench AY ITA No.103/CTK/2021: AY- 2011-12 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi , National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi , National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.12.2021
P a g e 1 | 4
Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2015-16 in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1038018437(1) for the assessment year 2011-12.
S/Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in assessee’s appeal was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of the provisions for leave encashment u/s.43B(f) of the Act without allowing actual expenditure.
It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Exide Industries Ltd. 425 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, it has been held that the leave encashment is liable to be allowed on actual payment.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of deduction of leave encashment on actual payment.
The assessee has also raised other grounds, which have not been argued, therefore, they are not being considered.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
P a g e 2 | 4
Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.104/CTK/2022: AY: 2015-16
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar dated 19.3.2020 in Appeal No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1026766936(1) for the assessment year 2015-16.
It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in the appeal was against the action of the Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar in directing the Assessing Officer to bring to tax the provisions for leave encashment u/s.43B(f) of the Act. It was the submission that the pr. CIT has not given direction to allow the same on actual payments. It was the prayer that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd., (supra), the order of the Pr. CIT may be modified to direct the AO to consider the allowance on actual payment.
In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that admittedly, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd (supra), the leave encashment is liable to be allowed on actual payment. Further, it was the submission that the Tribunal could not modify the order of the Pr. CIT on issues, where show cause notice has not been issued.
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, in the interest of justice, when the issue of leave encashment is to be considered, the allowability of the same on actual payment basis is also to be considered in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
P a g e 3 | 4
Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2015-16 of Exide Industries Ltd (supra). Consequently, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the Pr. CIT, passed under section 263 of the Act, shall consider the allowability on actual payment basis.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 12/01/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., 5th floor, Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Road, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: Dy. CIT, Corporate Circle 1(2),Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4
More judgments on Section 43B(f)
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- DCIT- 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs State Bank of India, MumbaiITA 3395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs State Bank of India, MumbaiITA 2429/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 2390/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Hp Computing and Printing Systems India… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2000/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026