TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer of Rs. 42,35,589/- of PF contribution and Rs. 50,046/- of ESIC totaling to Rs. 42,85,638/- is not allowable as deduction u/s 36(l)(va) and is assessee's income as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the Explanation given to Section 36(1 )(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of due date." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 34,99,178/- as reported by the Auditor in Form 3CD column 21(i) that the assessee-company has not paid' on or before furnishing the return of income which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer within the meaning of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the Explanation given to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of due date. As regards to Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 34,99,178/- as reported by the Auditor in Form 3CD column 21(i) that the assessee-company has not paid on or before furnishing the return of income which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer within the meaning of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. During the hearing, the Ld. AR was not present. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of submissions before the CIT(A). The submissions are as under:- "1. That the appellant denies its liability t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,05,370/-, being 10 times of difference in TDS as per 26AS (which was Rs. 2,77,93,933/-) and the TDS amount claimed in the return (which was Rs. 2,77,73,396/-) that to without any basis and surmises. 5. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in disallowing leave encashment amounting to Rs. 34,99,178/- u/s 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961. b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. A.O has erred in law and on facts by disregarding the fact that the assessee company did not claim deduction of leave encashment amounting to Rs. 34,99,178/- while computing the total income under the head ' Profits from Business or Profession', as can be seen fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Supreme Court in case of Vinay Cement (supra). We find that on the issue in dispute the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, which is binding on the Tribunal or the CIT(A) functioning under the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the same. Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. As regards Ground No. 2, the same is also decided correctly by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held as under: "9.9. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the Appellant. From the computation of income, it is seen that Appellant has disa....