KALYANI FORDGE LIMITD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE14, PUNE

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-9, Pune’s order dated 22.11.2019 passed in case no. PN/CIT(A)-7- trf. from/CIT(A)- 9 trf. In/10470/17-18/147 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset that the hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as the assessee’s sole substantive grievance claiming deduction of provision made for out Rs.16.60 lakhs and disallowed in both the lower proceedings, is concerned. 3. Learned counsel was fair enough at the outset that the assessee had not actually made the impugned payment to its so called employee(s) which forms the impugned claim herein. It thus turns out to be an instance wherein this assessee chose to make the impugned provision followed by its deduction claim. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Bhart Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) has indeed settled the law regarding allowability of a provision made on estimation basis for a liability which is claimed as present and actually discharged in future. Their lordships however add a caveat that some material must exist in support of such an estimation. Mr. Naniwadekar could hardly takes us through any such supportive material justifying the impugned provision. We thus accept the Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned disallowance/addition of Rs.16.60 lakhs for this precise reason alone. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 28th day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 28th June, 2022. Sujeet (DOC)