2017 (1) TMI 1660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned Commissioner of Incometax - 1, Mumbai ("CIT") under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in connection with the order passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under section 143(3) of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT has preferred this appeal on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other: 1. Proceeding under section 263 is bad in law and invalid a. The Learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating that the AO had passed order after examining the facts of case and documents available on record. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn income of the assessee at Rs. 8,19,51,343/-. Subsequently, the ld. CIT passed the order u/s 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-frame the order disallowing the quantum of provision for leave encashment debited to the Profit & Loss Account to the year under consideration. Aggrieved, by the order of CIT the assessee filed this appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee argued that the return of income was filed on 30.09.2009. The assessee paid the tax by way of TDS and advance tax and claimed the deduction for allowability of leave encas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6,55,204 Add: Provision made during FY 2008-09 4,06,000/- Closing outstanding as on 31.03.2009 60,61,204/- Assessee further contended that only Rs. 4,06,000/- has been debited to the Profit & Loss Account which represent the liability for leave encashment. The ld. CIT after considering the reply concluded that the AO would have disallowed the claim of leave encashment in the return of income which has not been done. Thus, the order is erroneous and directed the AO to re-frame the order as the same is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that the order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee has already paid the tax and made the cla....