9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against CIT's order withdrawing deduction for provision of gratuity under IT Act section 263. Analysis: The appeal was against the CIT's order under section 263 of the IT Act, withdrawing the deduction of Rs. 84,849 for the provision of gratuity made by the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77. The CIT contended that the deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as it was barred by section 40A(7). The ITO had restricted the deduction to Rs. 89,849 based on actuarial valuation. The assessee argued that section 40A(7)(b)(i) exempted them from disallowance of the gratuity provision deduction. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee after considering the facts. It was noted that the assessee had created a gratuity fund by trust deed on 28 December 1975, with approval from the CIT effective from 25th July 1977. A sum of Rs. 89,849 was paid into the fund on 31st March 1976. The Tribunal highlighted that the special provisions of section 40A(7) applied retrospectively for earlier assessment years and not for the year in question, 1976-77. Section 40A(7)(b) allowed for the deduction of a provision made for an approved gratuity fund, which was the case here. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision was made for the purpose of payment as a contribution to the approved fund, meeting the requirements of the law. Regarding the timing of the creation of the gratuity fund, the Tribunal clarified that the law did not mandate the fund's existence during the previous year or the contribution to be made during that year. The Tribunal explained that the section operated on a mercantile system of accounting, where deductions were based on accrual of liability. The definition of "paid" in section 43(2) aligned with the mercantile method of accounting, allowing for future payments. The Tribunal also considered the practicality of obtaining approval for the fund before the end of the previous year, acknowledging the process involving the CIT's approval and the assessee's actions. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled all requirements under the law, including creating and approving the fund and making the payment based on actuarial valuation. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's view that the deduction was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue was unfounded. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and reinstated the assessment made by the ITO, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
