9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Deduction of contribution to employees' gratuity fund without approval by Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. Interpretation of relevant provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Applicability of section 40A(7) introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, with retrospective effect. Analysis: The High Court of Allahabad was tasked with determining whether an assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 79,300 on account of contribution to the employees' gratuity fund, despite the fund not being approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax as required by the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1974-75. The Tribunal's history of decisions on this matter since the assessment year 1964-65 was crucial in understanding the context of the dispute. The Tribunal consistently allowed the deduction based on its earlier orders, even though the Commissioner disallowed it due to lack of approval for the gratuity fund. The Court rejected the assessee's objection that the question did not arise from the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the consistent disallowance reasoning since 1964-65. Regarding the merits of the controversy, the Court examined the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act, which allows deductions for contributions to approved gratuity funds. The Revenue argued that since the fund was not approved, the deduction was impermissible. In contrast, the assessee relied on precedents like Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills case and CIT v. Steel Rolling Mills of Bengal Ltd., which supported deductions for gratuity provisions. The introduction of section 40A(7) by the Finance Act, 1975, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1973, was crucial. This section imposed restrictions on deductions for gratuity provisions, emphasizing the necessity of an approved fund. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that deductions for gratuity provisions could only be allowed under the terms of section 40A(7) post its introduction. The Court highlighted that section 40A(7) overrode other provisions in the Act, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the provision. Consequently, the Court answered the Tribunal's question in the negative, denying the assessee's entitlement to the deduction for the contribution to the gratuity fund. Lastly, the Court addressed the contention that section 40A(7) was not applicable for the entire accounting period due to its enactment date. The Court dismissed this argument, citing established legal principles that the law applicable to an assessment year is as of the first day of that year. Therefore, the provisions of section 40A(7) were deemed applicable to the assessment year 1974-75, starting from April 1, 1974. The Court concluded by directing the Commissioner to recover costs from the assessee and ordered the dissemination of the judgment to the relevant authorities in compliance with the Act.
|
