2017 (6) TMI 522 - HC - Income Tax

Provisions regarding payment of gratuity - held that - Assessee paid gratuity on 13.09.2001 - gratuity was payable uptill 31.12.2001 and the due date for filing the return was 30.11.2001 - first proviso to Sec 43B as inserted by the FA, 2003 is retrospective in nature and is operative w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 - thus the gratuity was paid within the due date of filing of the return - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Questions of law framed in connected Income Tax Appeal No. 378 of 2006.
2. Additional question of law regarding gratuity.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed questions of law framed in the connected Income Tax Appeal No. 378 of 2006. It was noted that the three questions of law in this appeal were answered in terms of a separate judgment and order passed on the same day in favor of the assessee and against the department. The decision in Income Tax Appeal No. 378 of 2006 influenced the outcome of the present appeal, leading to its dismissal based on the findings of the Court.

2. An additional question of law concerning gratuity was raised in the appeal. The Court observed that the gratuity amount in question was paid by the assessee on 13.09.2001, while it was found to be payable until 31.12.2001, with the due date for filing the return being 30.11.2001. Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), the Court highlighted that the first proviso to Section 43 B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective from 1st April, 1988. As the gratuity was paid well before the due date for filing the return and the last date for payment, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was deemed appropriate, with no error found in the said aspect of the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the questions of law from a connected Income Tax Appeal and an additional issue regarding gratuity. The decision in the related appeal influenced the outcome of the present case, leading to its dismissal. The Court's analysis of the gratuity matter emphasized compliance with relevant provisions and previous judicial interpretations, ultimately supporting the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.