9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business - The CIT proceeded on a totally wrong premise in finding the claim to be only u/s 43B(f) and then disallowing it. The order of AO allowing deduction to assessee in the case of premium paid towards the valid insurance policy, ensuring the satisfaction of liability for leave encashment by the insurer cannot be held to be erroneous and was not liable to be revised u/s 263 for the reason of being prejudicial to the revenue - Following decision of CIT vs. Hindustan Latex Ltd. [2012 (6) TMI 713 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2010, I.T.A. No.412/Jodh/2011, I.T.A. No.378/Jodh/2012 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gautam Vaid Rajendra Jain For the Respondent : Dr. Deepak Sehgal, D. R. ORDER Per N. K., Saini:- These three appeals of the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 11/02/2010, 12/10/2010 and 16/12/2011 for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010 respectively of CIT(A), Jodhpur. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and the appeals were heard together, so t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the illegality of the charge of interest u/s 234B and 234C. There is no order about sec 234C it is thus illegal, and in any case in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. CIT 85 Taxman 201 (Civil appeal also dismissed by supreme court (2000) 114 Taxman 414 (SC), the interest is not chargeable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in any case it can be charged on returned income only. The ground it is prayed needs to be allowed. 7. That the appellant prays and seeks permission (a) to add to the grounds of appeal (b) alter and or amend the grounds of appeal at any time before the hearing and or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. First issue in this appeal relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs.65,67,700/- debited by the assessee to Suraksha fund. 4. The facts related to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31/10/2007 declaring an income of Rs.3,89,69,650/- and the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had debited provision for Suraksha fund amounting to Rs.65,67,700/-. The Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51 of the assessee's compilation. 8. In his rival submissions, the learned D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is noticed that a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the aforesaid referred to order dated 19/02/2013. In the said order, by following the order dated 22/07/2011 of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT v. Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. in I.T.A. No.1277/Jaipur/2010 for the assessment year 2007-2008, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant findings have been given in para 2.6 to 2.8 of the said order, which read as under: "2.6 After considering the submissions of both the parties and the materials available on record, it is noticed that similar issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in the aforesaid referred to case of ACIT vs Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaipur. In the said case on similar issue, the addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) by observing as under:- "Allowability of contribution by the Apex Bank for PAC Mangers salary is a statutory liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted." 10. In view of the above discussion and by respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 19th February, 2013 in the case of The Sirohi Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jodhpur in I.T.A. No.351/JU/2012, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 11. The next issue, vide ground No. 2, 4 and 5, relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs.15,71,767/- made by the Assessing Officer being premium paid to LIC group gratuity scheme. 12. The facts related to this issue, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.15,71,767/- as gratuity fund investment with LIC. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee furnished copy of LIC and letter sent by the I.T. Department on 10/03/98 but no approval of this fund was produced. The Assessing Officer was of the view that it was not allowable expenditure as per the provisions of I.T. Act. He, therefore, disallowed Rs.15,71,767/- and added the same to the declared income of the assessee. 13. The assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further stated that this issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bitoni Lamps Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 396 (P H) and the decision dated 11/08/2010 of ITAT Jodhpur Bench in I.T.A. No.368/JU/2010 in the case of The Jalore Sirohi Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. vs. ACIT. Copy of the said order was furnished, which is placed at page No. 152 to 154 of the assessee's compilation. 15. In his rival submissions the learned D.R. strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the instant case it appears that the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the approval of this fund was not furnished. It is noticed that the assessee vide letter dated 17/11/2012 written to the CIT-II, Jodhpur asked about the approval which was applied on 23/04/97 (copy of the letter is placed on record) but it is not yet clear as to whether the assessee got the approval. It is also relevant to point out that in the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) observed that no such contention had been raised before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 20. Now the assessee is in appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision dated 19/02/2013 of this Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.351/JU/12 in the case of The Sirohi Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jodhpur. Copy of the said order was furnished, which is placed at page No. 147 to 151 of the assessee's compilation. 21. In his rival submissions the learned D.R. strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is noticed that a similar issue having identical facts has been decided by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 19/02/2013 in the case of The Sirohi Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Jodhpur (supra) and the relevant findings have been given in para 3.7 3.8 of the said order dated 19/02/2013 which read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
