JCIT (OSD) 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aptech Ltd, Mumbai
In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 3369/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3369/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dy. Cit-9(1)(2), M/S. Aptech Limited बनाम/ Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, A-65, Aptech House, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadca 0602 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rutuja Pawar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 29.04.2014 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2007- 08. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I) “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty On The Issue Of Provision For Rebate Claimed Without Appreciating The Fact That The Same Was A Mere Provision & Was 2 Dy. Cit Vs. M/S. Aptech Limited Patently Not Allowable Which Amounts To Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars In The Return Of Income, Thus Liable For Penalty?" Ii) “'Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty On The Issue Of Provision For Leave Encashment Without Appreciating The Fact That The Same Was Not Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income As Mandated By Clause (F) Of Section 43B Of The It, Act, Thereby Making A Claim Which Is Patently Inaccurate, Hence Liable For Penalty?" '
For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rutuja Pawar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(2)Section 43B
…at any sum payable by the assessee as an employer, in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employees, shall be allowed only if it is actually paid. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd 292 ITR 470 (Cal.) wherein it has been held that sub-section (f) is ultra vires the Constitution. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly upheld the disallowance to the extent of Rs.19,00,417/- on the ground that the provision is a contingent liability and not ascertained and allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.21,70,952/- onl…
