9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of provision for gratuity as an admissible deduction in the computation of business income. 2. Applicability of section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Deductibility of Provision for Gratuity The primary question was whether the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the provision of Rs. 87,665 for gratuity as an admissible deduction in the computation of the business income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72, u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had a settlement with its employees on August 10, 1970, which led to the implementation of a gratuity scheme during the relevant year. The assessee initially charged Rs. 2,31,695 to the profit and loss account but later confined its claim to Rs. 1,43,124 based on an actuarial valuation. The Income-tax Officer allowed Rs. 55,459 and disallowed Rs. 87,665, attributing it to earlier years. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the entire claim, following the Bombay High Court's observations in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO [1975] 101 ITR 292, which stated that a provision for gratuity based on a scientific estimate of present liability is admissible under the mercantile system of accounting. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 40A(7) The non-applicability of section 40A(7) was not disputed, as it was concluded by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Garware Synthetic Bristles [1994] 205 ITR 426. Section 40A(7) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1973, and thus did not apply to the assessment year 1971-72. Tribunal's Decision and Legal Precedents The Tribunal's decision was based on the Bombay High Court's ruling in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.'s case, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. However, the principles enunciated by the Bombay High Court regarding the deductibility of the provision for gratuity before the insertion of section 40A(7) were accepted. The Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585 outlined the law prevalent before section 40A(7), stating that provisions for gratuity based on actuarial valuation were deductible. Court's Analysis The court noted that the gratuity scheme resulted from a settlement and was implemented for the first time in the assessment year 1971-72. The legal liability towards gratuity arose during this year, and the provision made by the assessee was based on a scientific estimate of present liability. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53, which allowed for the deduction of estimated liabilities under a gratuity scheme in the mercantile system of accounting. Conclusion The court concluded that the provision for gratuity, even if related to earlier years, was a liability that arose when the scheme was first introduced and was deductible in the year of its implementation. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision to allow the entire provision for gratuity as a deduction. No costs were awarded.
|
