← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(va)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)2,467 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(va) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va)

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.
368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court
609
citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn
41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court
540
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(va)

M-Five Security Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -17 (1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 126, Greenview Apartment, Ward-17(1), Mandi Road, New Delhi Manglapuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccm2375B

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 471/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

ACIT, Circle- 3, Nainital vs. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 1200/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

loss at (-) Rs.96,68,009/- instead of returned loss of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- (ii) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in EPF and ECGI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) and 43B of the Act. (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50,442/- on Government loans/ advances (iv) Disallowance ... interest under section 14A. 3.1 Vide 5 grounds; the Revenue has raised following issues (i) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in ECGI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50,442/- on Government loans/ advances (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.65

ACIT, Nainital vs. M/S. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 908/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

loss at (-) Rs.96,68,009/- instead of returned loss of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- (ii) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in EPF and ECGI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) and 43B of the Act. (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50,442/- on Government loans/ advances (iv) Disallowance ... interest under section 14A. 3.1 Vide 5 grounds; the Revenue has raised following issues (i) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in ECGI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50,442/- on Government loans/ advances (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.65

Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia, Bhopal vs. Thre Asstt.Directore of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment ... Supra) holds that the deductions can be claimed or adjustments can be made under section 143(1)(a)(iv), read with section 36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Employees State

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Bidadi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Or the DCIT, Circle - 7(1)(1), Koramangala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1539/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

record. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) ofthe

M/S Daulataram Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mandideep vs. The ADIT/CPC, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment ... Supra) holds that the deductions can be claimed or adjustments can be made under section 143(1)(a)(iv), read with section 36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Employees State

Such Media Publication P Ltd, CIT (A) NFAC Delhi vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 66/IND/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

laws, made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) r.w.s. section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. While the assessee does not have any dispute against applicability of the decision ... orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

before due date and consider the Finance Act 2021 amendment is illegal, bad in law and void-ab- initio, as amendment to section 36(1)(va) is only prospective in nature and not retrospective i.e. not related to relevant Assessment Year 2017-18. 3. First, we take up the appeal ... contribution within the prescribed time and therefore, an addition of Rs. 8,042 was made as in terms of provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. 6. Contribution to state Renewal Fund Ld. AO noted that the assessee has debited

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

before due date and consider the Finance Act 2021 amendment is illegal, bad in law and void-ab- initio, as amendment to section 36(1)(va) is only prospective in nature and not retrospective i.e. not related to relevant Assessment Year 2017-18. 3. First, we take up the appeal ... contribution within the prescribed time and therefore, an addition of Rs. 8,042 was made as in terms of provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. 6. Contribution to state Renewal Fund Ld. AO noted that the assessee has debited

Amj Land Holdings Ltd., Pune vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2415/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Amj Land Holdings Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Vs. Thergaon, Pune – 411033 Cpc, Bengaluru Pan: Aabcp0310Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(va)

order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.64,469/- against late payment of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund as per CPC order: (a) On the facts ... Income Tax (Appeals) legally erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.64,469/- made by the Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that no such disallowance was warranted on the facts of the case. (b) On the facts

Power Mech Infra Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 201/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Kishna Ram, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Nahan, Nahan

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Laljee Agarjeet, C.A Ms. Meenu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Form 3CD. The CPC noted that these contributions had been credited to the respective employees’ accounts after the due dates prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, and accordingly disallowed the deduction by making an adjustment in the intimation. 5. Aggrieved by the adjustment, the assessee filed ... before the Ld. CIT(A) contending that while there was a delay in depositing the employees’ contribution beyond the due dates specified under section 36(1)(va), the contributions were nevertheless deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1). Relying on various judicial

N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/AHD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR
Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad vs. Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Vijay Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rajkot vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 862/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 862 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vijay Commercial Co- Vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Operative Bank Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay Bhavan, Kanak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot – 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaav3799C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. R. Mankodi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :11/02/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :05/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri J. R. Mankodi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

ORPORATION BANK LTD. v. ACIT 2017 has been upheld considering the late deposit of EPF being in violation of stipulation made in the section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated ... regards February 2017 deposit, we request your honor not to consider the late deposit of PF contributions as default under provisions contained in section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because of the above noted reason, the situation was beyond the control of the assessee as explained

M/S. Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1614/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 26ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

course of assessment proceedings, the AO made two additions: - Rs.12,785/- on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC, invoking section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x); and - Rs.1,14,75,362/- on account of mismatch between gross receipts shown in Form 26AS and that ... employees’ contribution was deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislations and therefore, not allowable as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va). The AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

facts and add the employees contribution to PF amounting of Rs. 16263564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act 1961. 9. A.O. has erred in imposing interest under section 234A, B, C, D. 10. The appellant craves leave