Section 43B(f) requires actual payment for leave encashment deduction, mere provision insufficient for tax benefit

The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance of provisions for leave encashment based on actuarial valuation. The tribunal held that Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, inserted after the SC's Bharat Earth Movers judgment, requires actual payment for deduction of leave encashment expenses. The provision overrides accounting principles and allows deduction only upon actual payment, not mere provision. The tribunal applied purposive construction, noting Parliament's intent to prevent deduction claims without actual payment. The CIT(A)'s disallowance was upheld as legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of delayed deposit of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund (PF).
2. Disallowance of provisions made for leave encashment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Delayed Deposit of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund (PF)
The appellant did not press ground no. 2 regarding the disallowance of Rs. 29,96,545/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delayed deposit of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund (PF). This issue was dismissed as it was covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (448 ITR 518 (SC)).

Issue 2: Disallowance of Provisions Made for Leave Encashment
The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 14,70,00,661/- for provisions made for leave encashment, arguing that it was based on actuarial valuation and not a statutory liability. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance under section 43B(f) of the Act, which mandates that such sums are deductible only on actual payment. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the amount of leave encashment paid up to the date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal reviewed the facts and cited various case laws, including Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. CIT, which supported the appellant's claim that provisions for leave encashment based on actuarial valuation are deductible. However, the Tribunal noted that section 43B(f), introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, overrides this by allowing such deductions only on actual payment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that section 43B is an overriding provision that mandates deductions based on actual payments to prevent misuse. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legal sustainability of the CIT(A)'s action.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The Tribunal emphasized the overriding nature of section 43B(f), which allows deductions for leave encashment only on actual payment, aligning with legislative intent to prevent misuse.

---