2012 (11) TMI 20 - AT - Income Tax

Contribution to gratuity fund - disallowance of payment as the said fund is not approved - Held that - It is not rebutted by the Revenue that the assessee company has made application for seeking approval from the competent authority for Heubach Colour Ltd. Employees Group Gratuity-cum-life assurance (Cash Accumulation) Scheme & assessee has been making reminder to the concerned authorities but no response has been received under these circumstances, it would subserve the interest of justice if this issue is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh decision to verify the status of application of the assessee, in case, the concerned authority has accorded approval to the gratuity fund, the AO shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of contribution to gratuity fund under section 40A(7)
2. Disallowance of administrative expenses and interest under section 14A

Issue 1: Disallowance of contribution to gratuity fund under section 40A(7):
The appellant contested the disallowance of a contribution made to the gratuity fund under section 40A(7) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2005-06. The appellant argued that despite applying for approval of the trust, the contribution was disallowed. The appellant referred to a similar case where the issue was sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The appellant emphasized the lack of response from authorities despite reminders. The Appellate Tribunal noted the appellant's efforts to seek approval and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, granting the appellant the opportunity to approach the concerned authority for approval.

Issue 2: Disallowance of administrative expenses and interest under section 14A:
During the hearing, the appellant's representative informed that ground No.2 was not pressed due to the small amount involved, resulting in its dismissal. The remaining ground challenged the disallowance of the contribution to the gratuity fund under section 40A(7). The appellant argued that the contribution was made to an approved scheme, and the lack of response from authorities justified a remittance of the issue to the Assessing Officer. The Senior-DR, however, supported the orders of the authorities below, emphasizing the requirement for approval of the fund by the competent authority. The Tribunal observed the appellant's application for approval and the absence of responses, leading to the decision to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the appellant and the Senior-DR, and the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration.