Tribunal dismisses Assessee's appeal on salary provision, allows Revenue's appeal on Section 14A.

The Assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of ad-hoc provision of salary and denial of change in accounting policy was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld that the liability for the pay revision had not accrued during the relevant financial year and that the change in accounting policy was not in compliance with Accounting Standard-9. However, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes regarding the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that proper verifications were lacking and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of disallowance of ad-hoc provision of salary.
2. Addition of denial of change in the accounting policy.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Disallowance of Ad-hoc Provision of Salary:

The Assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,60,00,000 for ad-hoc provision of salary based on anticipated pay revision following the Pay Revision Committee's recommendations. The AO disallowed this claim, stating that the liability was unascertained and had not crystallized during the relevant financial year (FY 2006-07). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the liability had not accrued during the year, as the final decision on pay revision was taken in FY 2008-09.

The Tribunal agreed with the AO and CIT(A), stating that the liability for the pay revision had not accrued during FY 2006-07, as the Pay Revision Committee had not completed its deliberations, and the final implementation occurred in FY 2008-09. The Tribunal emphasized that each assessment year is separate and self-contained, and a liability not actually present but only contingent cannot be deducted for tax purposes.

2. Addition of Denial of Change in Accounting Policy:

The Assessee changed its accounting policy for recognizing revenue from application fees, processing fees, front-end fees, and administrative fees from accrual basis to receipt basis, resulting in a reduction of profit by Rs. 1,28,00,000. The AO added back this amount, stating that the change in accounting policy was made after the close of the accounting year and was not in compliance with Accounting Standard-9.

The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the Assessee's change in accounting policy was based on a faulty premise that it had no financial impact. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Assessee was not permitted to selectively adopt a cash system of accounting for certain items while following a mercantile system for others. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act would prevail over any observations by the Audit Party of Comptroller & Auditor General.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act Read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules:

The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 1,90,27,57,705 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was later revised to Rs. 1,89,73,51,151. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, stating that Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08, and the AO had not examined the Assessee's claim properly.

The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was applicable only from AY 2008-09, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd. However, the Tribunal observed that the AO should have computed the disallowance under Section 14A without relying on Rule 8D and should have carried out necessary verifications regarding the nature of investments. The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct proper verification and thus restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.

Conclusion:

- Assessee’s appeal (ITA No. 5705/Del/2014): Dismissed.
- Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 6151/Del/2014): Partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---