The Commissionerof Income Tax-Iii v. Sapient Corporationpvt Ltd

$-1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CM No. 9159/2013& ITA 288/2013 THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX-III Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus SAPIENT CORPORATIONPVT LTD Through Nemo. Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER23.07.2013 Thereis delayof 262 days in filingofthe appeal. It is statedthatthere was change in counsel resulting in the said substantialdelay.However, before issuing notice on the said application, we havedeemedit appropriateto examineandconsiderthe case ofthe appellanton merits, as we find that no ground for issue of notice on merits ismade out. 2.The respondent assessee is a company and for the AssessmentYear 2004-05 reassessmentproceedingswere initiated on the groundthat Rs.37,31,971/-towardsunpaid leave encashmentshouldhave been disallowedunderSection43Bof theIncomeTaxAct,1961.Assessmentorder dated 23'^ September,2009 was passed.makingthesaid addition after noticing that the respondent-assesseein his replyhad mentioneddetails, but the reply filed by the assesseewas unacceptable. No facts have been discussedin the assessmentorder. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noticed that theappellanthad filed a letter before the AssessingOfficer, stating thatthey had made paymentof Rs.37,26,812/-towards leave encashmentduringthe periodrelevantto the Assessmentyear 2004-05. It was alsorecorded that the opening outstanding balance of unpaid leaveencashmentwas Rs.1,34,65,505/-.Thus,this amountof Rs.37,26,812/-should be allowed as a deduction and the net addition should beRs.5,159/-. This plea of the assesseehas been acceptedby the CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal. The said observationand the findingsrecordedbythe CIT (Appeals)and the tribunalare correctand did notrequireany interference,once the Revenuehas acceptedthat paymentof Rs.37,26,812/-was made and there was an outstandingbalanceofunpaid leave encashmentof more than Rs.l crore in the beginningofthe year. In spite of being repeatedlyquestioned,learnedcounselforthe appellant-Revenuehas not statedthat Rs.37,26,812/-was includedand was claimed as expenditure in the earlier years. j 4.Learned counsel for the appellanthas submittedthat the totaldisallowance made by the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal wasRs.50,935/-and, therefore,the assessee had probably not stated thetrue and correct facts.This aspect was not urged by the Revenuebefore the tribunal.It is correct that the tribunal has recorded thatdisallowance was made of Rs.50,935/-, but this was on account of thefact that the assesseehad pointedout an error in the computationandas they had wrongly claimed Rs.45,476/- in excess towards leaveencashmentaccount. No notice is requiredto be issued on the saidaspect/finding. 5.In view of the aforesaidposition,we do not think it is necessaryto issue notice on the application for condonation of delay andconsequentlythe saidapplicationalongwiththe appealare dismissed. JULY 23, 2013VKR SANJIV KHANNA, J.eju) c rSANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.