2016 (2) TMI 1315 - AT - Income Tax

Contribution made by the assessee to the superannuation fund - allowable revenue expenses u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the assessee was established by the State Government. By a Government Order, the State Government gave option to the employees of the erstwhile Port Department to work under the assessee-board. The Government categorically clarified that the employees who opted to work under the assessee-board would have the same tenure, remuneration, rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity. The Government employees who were transferred to the assessee-board will have the same rights and privileges in respect of superannuation and pension. The contribution made by the assessee to the superannuation fund has to be allowed atleast u/s 37 of the Act as found by the Madras High Court in Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd 1998 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Absorption of the Government employees by the assessee-board will not make any distinction in respect of payment for superannuation fund. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any error in the order dated 21.8.2015 much less a prima facie error. There is no merit at all in the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misrepresentation of facts by the assessee before the Tribunal regarding the contribution to the unapproved superannuation fund.
2. Applicability of the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd [2004] 268 ITR 507 to the present case.
3. Allowance of contribution made by the assessee in respect of government employees transferred to the assessee-board.
4. Interpretation of provisions under sec. 36(1)(iv), 36(1)(v), and 37 of the Act in relation to the contribution made by the assessee to the superannuation fund.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contended that the assessee misrepresented facts by relying on the judgment of the Madras High Court in a different case. The Departmental Representative argued that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the case cited by the assessee. The Revenue claimed that the contribution made by the assessee to an unapproved superannuation fund was different from the provident fund contribution in the cited case. Additionally, the Revenue highlighted differences in the remittance process and employee status between the two cases. The Revenue proposed that the claim could potentially be allowed for a specific number of employees, although the basis for this allowance was not clarified.

2. The assessee's counsel countered the Revenue's arguments by asserting that reliance on the Madras High Court judgment was not a misrepresentation of facts. The counsel argued that the situation of the assessee-board was similar to that of the Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd, as both entities were government-related. The counsel emphasized that the government employees transferred to the assessee-board retained their rights and privileges, including those related to superannuation and pension. The Tribunal had previously allowed the contribution based on the cited judgment. Therefore, the assessee's counsel maintained that there was no misrepresentation of facts.

3. Upon evaluating the submissions from both parties and examining the available records, the Tribunal found that the assessee was established by the State Government, and government employees were transferred to the assessee-board with the same rights and privileges. The Tribunal concluded that the contribution made by the assessee to the superannuation fund should be allowed under relevant sections of the Act, as per the Madras High Court judgment. The absorption of government employees by the assessee-board did not impact the entitlement to superannuation fund payments. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's petition, stating that there was no error in the previous order.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the transferred employees retained their rights and privileges, justifying the allowance of the contribution to the superannuation fund under the applicable sections of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the similarity of the situations between the assessee-board and the previously cited case, reinforcing its decision to dismiss the Revenue's petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the context and the rights of the employees in determining the eligibility for such contributions, ultimately upholding the previous order in favor of the assessee.