1978 (4) TMI 107 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Deduction of Gratuity based on Actuarial Valuation.
2. Applicability of Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Method of Accounting followed by the Assessee.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court and Tribunal Decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Gratuity based on Actuarial Valuation:

The assessee, a textile mill, claimed a deduction for gratuity amounting to Rs. 20,22,000 based on actuarial valuation. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed this claim, stating it was not allowable as the assessee had made a provision without complying with the necessary rules. The ITO further argued that even though the amount was actuarially valued, it was not allowable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

2. Applicability of Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The ITO contended that the provisions of Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were introduced with retrospective effect from April 1, 1973, were applicable. This section states that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any provision made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity to employees unless certain statutory requirements are fulfilled. The assessee argued that since no provision was made in its accounts, Section 40A(7) was not applicable. The ITO rejected this argument, stating that the liability for gratuity was not an admissible deduction on a due basis and that the assessee had historically claimed gratuity on an actual payment basis.

3. Method of Accounting followed by the Assessee:

The assessee claimed to follow the mercantile system of accounting and argued that the liability to pay gratuity arose due to the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The ITO and the Assistant Appellate Commissioner (AAC) observed that the assessee had not made any provision in its accounts for gratuity and historically accounted for gratuity on a cash basis. The AAC noted that the liability for gratuity did not crystallize until the employee retired or the business closed down, thus rejecting the assessee's claim.

4. Interpretation of Supreme Court and Tribunal Decisions:

The assessee cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. and Kedar Nath Jute Mills Ltd., to support its claim. The ITO, however, relied on other Supreme Court decisions, such as Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Standard Mills Co. Ltd., to argue against the assessee's claim. The Tribunal observed that the consistent view taken by various benches, including the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron and Steel Company, was that if the assessee did not make a provision in respect of payment of gratuity, the provisions of Section 40A(7) would not be applicable. Furthermore, it was held that if the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, it would be entitled to claim a deduction for gratuity based on actuarial valuation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim for deduction of gratuity based on actuarial valuation was allowable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained its books of account on a mercantile basis and had not made any provision for gratuity, thus not being affected by Section 40A(7). The Tribunal also highlighted that the liability for payment of gratuity was a statutory liability under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and accrued to the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessee's claim for deduction of gratuity liability was accepted.