NEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in disregarding the fact of the matter and dismissing the appeal only on the legal ground that the issue under consideration is controversial and beyond the ambit of section 154 of the Act. 1.2 The appellant wishes to state that the issue under consideration is not controversial but mere non-consideration of facts on hand. The Learned AO proceeded to pass the before the filing of return of income and thus allowable deduction under section 43B of the Act rectification order under section 154 of the Act without considering the fact that the appellant has made payment of leave encashment after the date of the tax audit report but 1.3 Thus Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and ignoring the facts on record. 1.4 Accordingly, the appellant prays Your Honour to consider the plea as above and direct the Learned AO to verify the claim and delete the demand of Rs. 5,22,070. 2. Ground No. II- Disallowance of Leave Encashment Expenditure Amounting to Rs. 20,09,075 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction for leave encashment expenditure of Rs. 20,09,075/- paid before the due date of filing return of income but after filing of tax audit report. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the submissions of the appellant that the leave encashment amounting to Rs. 20,09,075 was pald before the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 30th November 2022 and upholding the disallowance of leave encashment expenditure by Learned AO which is completely incorrect, unlawful, without juri iction and hence bad-in-law. 2.3 In light of the above, the appellant prays before Your Honor to direct the Learned AO to verify the claim and delete the aforementioned disallowance.

Ground No. III - Incorrect Levy of Interest Under Section 234C of the Act 3.1 Consequent to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of interest Rs. 16,433/- under section 234C of the Act by Learned AO. 3.2 The appellant company prays that on verification of the above claim, the demand shall stand deleted and accordingly interest would not be payable under Section 234C of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above stated Grounds of Appeal at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal. 2. All the grounds raised by the assessee relates to challenging the disallowance of leave encashment expenditure, therefore we have decided to take up all the grounds together and adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 3. After having heard both the parties on the grounds raised in the present appeal and after evaluating the orders passed by the revenue authorities, documents placed on record, we noticed that assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration, subsequently intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued for proposed adjustments of Rs. 20,09,075/- on account of leave encashment. 4. The assessee explained that the additional claim raised was on account of payment made after date of tax audit report but prior to due date of filing of return which was a allowable expense as per the provisions of Sec.43B of the 4 NEC Software Solutions (Ind) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सािपत ित ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.