Leave encashment liability paid to employees allowed as deduction under Section 43B(f) on payment basis

ITAT Kolkata allowed the taxpayer's appeal regarding leave encashment addition. The tribunal held that leave encashment liability paid to employees during AY 2017-18, though pertaining to earlier years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and previously disallowed, was allowable on payment basis under Section 43B(f). The taxpayer had paid taxes on disallowed amounts through Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024. ITAT directed AO to allow the deduction upon evidence of payment, citing SC precedent in Goetze India Ltd that limitation for revised returns applies to assessing authority, not appellate authority.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 44,51,267/- actually paid during the assessment year (AY) 2017-18 under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the provision for the same having been disallowed in earlier years on accrual basisRs.

(b) Whether the appellate authority can entertain additional grounds claiming deduction on payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Act, even if such claim was not made before the Assessing Officer and was disallowed in earlier yearsRs.

(c) The applicability and interpretation of judicial precedents concerning the allowability of leave encashment provisions on accrual basis versus payment basis, including the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs M/s Exide Industries Ltd. and subsequent case law.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Allowability of deduction for leave encashment paid during AY 2017-18 under Section 43B(f) of the Act despite disallowance in earlier years

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act mandates that certain expenses, including leave encashment, are allowable as deduction only on actual payment and not on accrual basis. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs M/s Exide Industries Ltd. held that leave encashment provisions are deductible only on payment basis under Section 43B(f). Earlier, the assessee had claimed leave encashment on accrual basis for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. However, the Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries vs Union of India (2007) had held Section 43B(f) ultra vires and allowed accrual basis deduction, but this decision was stayed by the Supreme Court.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the leave encashment amount of Rs. 44,51,267/- was actually paid during FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18, although it pertained to provisions made in earlier years. The payments corresponded to amounts disallowed earlier under Section 43B(f). The assessee had not claimed deduction for these amounts in earlier years to avoid double claims, instead opting to claim deduction on payment basis in AY 2017-18. The Tribunal relied on the principle that Section 43B(f) allows deduction only on payment basis, and the actual payment in the relevant year entitled the assessee to claim deduction in that year.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee filed returns for AY 2017-18 claiming deduction for the amount paid. The assessee also filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for the earlier AYs, indicating tax payment on those disallowed amounts. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim upon submission of evidence of payment.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory mandate of Section 43B(f), which restricts deduction to actual payment, and reconciled it with the factual scenario where the payment was made in the relevant year. The prior disallowance on accrual basis was not a bar to claiming deduction on payment basis in the year of payment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had disallowed the claim on the ground that the additional ground was not admitted during appellate proceedings and that the claim was barred since it was not made in the original return or assessment proceedings. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the appellate authority has the power to admit additional grounds and that the limitation on filing revised returns applies only to the Assessing Officer, not the appellate forum.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 44,51,267/- under Section 43B(f) for AY 2017-18 upon actual payment, notwithstanding prior disallowance on accrual basis in earlier years.

Issue (b): Admissibility of additional grounds for claiming deduction under Section 43B(f) at appellate stage

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that the power to admit additional claims or grounds is limited before the Assessing Officer but broader before the appellate authority. The Tribunal also cited decisions of the Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs Shantinath Detergents (P.) Ltd., Delhi High Court in CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., and Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., which upheld the appellate authority's power to admit additional grounds related to taxability of sums already offered to tax.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority's jurisdiction is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and that it has the discretion to admit additional grounds even if not raised earlier. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's additional ground was a legal claim arising from the Supreme Court's decision in Exide Industries and related precedents, thus meriting admission and adjudication.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee had submitted the additional ground during appellate proceedings, supported by relevant case law. The CIT(A) had declined to entertain the additional ground relying on Section 119(2) of the Act and the Goetze decision, but the Tribunal distinguished this and allowed the ground.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that appellate authorities have broader powers to admit additional grounds and claims, especially when based on legal developments and when the sum was already offered to tax in the return.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued against admission of additional grounds, citing procedural limitations and prior judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive in light of the judicial precedents supporting admission at appellate stage.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the additional ground claiming deduction under Section 43B(f) on payment basis was admissible and should be adjudicated on merits.

Issue (c): Interpretation of judicial precedents on leave encashment deduction under Section 43B(f)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The key precedent is the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India vs M/s Exide Industries Ltd., which clarified that leave encashment deductions are allowable only on payment basis under Section 43B(f). The Calcutta High Court's contrary decision in Exide Industries vs Union of India was stayed by the Supreme Court. Other relevant decisions include CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd., PCIT vs Shantinath Detergents (P.) Ltd., Universal Cables Ltd. vs DCIT, and Birla Corporation Ltd. vs DCIT, which reinforce the principle of allowability only on payment basis.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal aligned itself with the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling, recognizing that leave encashment provisions cannot be claimed on accrual basis but only when actually paid. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the stay on the Calcutta High Court's decision rendered the accrual basis claim untenable.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's prior claims on accrual basis were disallowed, and taxes were paid under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, confirming the correctness of the Supreme Court's position. The Tribunal found the payment during AY 2017-18 to be the relevant event triggering deduction under Section 43B(f).

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the binding Supreme Court precedent to the facts, allowing deduction only in the year of actual payment, which was AY 2017-18 in this case.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee relied on the Calcutta High Court decision and other ITAT rulings to argue for accrual basis deduction, but the Tribunal rejected this in view of the Supreme Court's stay and ruling.

Conclusions: The Tribunal confirmed that the deduction for leave encashment is allowable only on actual payment basis under Section 43B(f), as held by the Supreme Court and subsequent judicial authorities.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The leave encashment liability of Rs. 44,51,267/- was paid to the employees during the relevant AY 2017-18 which though pertained to the leave encashment provided for in the earlier AYs 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 but had been disallowed and taxes thereon have been paid by the assessee by filing the application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05, therefore, the impugned payment of Rs. 44,51,267/- is allowable in the relevant AY 2017-18 on the payment basis in terms of Section 43B(f) of the Act and the Ld. AO is directed to allow the same after the assessee files the evidence for payment of the same."

"The limitation as regards filing of the revised return to entertain the claim is for the Assessing Authority and not for the Appellate Authority as has been held in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) which has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (supra)."

Core principles established include:

• Deduction under Section 43B(f) for leave encashment is allowable only on actual payment and not on accrual basis.
• Where leave encashment provision was disallowed in earlier years on accrual basis, the assessee can claim deduction in the year of actual payment under Section 43B(f).
• The appellate authority has the power to admit additional grounds and claims even if not raised before the Assessing Officer, particularly when based on legal developments and when the amount is already offered to tax.
• The limitation on filing revised returns applies to the Assessing Officer and not to the appellate authority.

Final determinations on each issue were in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim of deduction for leave encashment paid during AY 2017-18 under Section 43B(f), admitting the additional ground at appellate stage, and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction upon proof of payment.

---