CLINISYS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

The facts in brief are that during the year the assessee has created a provision for leave encashment of ₹32,98,103 and also paid leave encashment during the year in respect of prior years to the tune of ₹3,80,401/- meaning thereby disallowing only ₹29,17,702/-, suo motto while filing the return of income in Para 11 (F) which deals with the amount debited to the Profit and Loss account in the previous year but disallowance u/s 43B of the Act was made. In other words, the assessee itself disallowed ₹29,17,702. However, the ld. AO(CPC) while processing the return of income added the amount paid by the assessee during the year to the income of the assessee. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the Learner AO by holding that assessee himself has shown in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD at serial number 26B(b), an amount of ₹32,98,103/- was not paid on or before the stipulated date. However, whereas the amount disallowed under Section 143Bof the Act was only ₹29,17, 702.The ld. CIT (A) further noted that assessee has not submitted any documenting evidences in the form of challans or books of accounts or any other relevant documents regarding payments of Leave encashment before filing the return of income. Therefore, the ld. AO (CPC) has correctly made the addition. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has categorically sated in the computation of income attached to the ITR that out of the total provisions created during the year of ₹32,98,103/-, the assessee has adjusted ₹3,80,401/- on account of payment of leave encashment during the year in respect of prior years. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the ld. AO / CPC has no Clinisys (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 2022-23