9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee cannot suffer for the inaction of the Revenue authorities and the Assessing Officer ought not to have disallowed the claim merely because the Commissioner has not granted approval of the Gratuity Scheme. Once the assessee fulfils the condition laid down for approval having created a trust with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has not deposited money in terms of creation of the trust, therefore, in our view the Tribunal on such facts is well justified in holding that the claim is just, proper and allowable. A just and reasonable claim deserves to be allowed. We find that both the appellate authorities have found it allowable on the facts found and is essentially a finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etent authority for approving the gratuity scheme enclosing therein scheme to be approved under Part C of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The forwarding letter also contained creation of trust- deed and rules under the gratuity scheme passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, though it was claimed that it was submitted before the Commissioner who is the competent authority, however, since no formal order was passed by the competent authority, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee. 5. The matter was assailed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the assessee raised claim that the claim is allowable under section 36(1)(v) of the Act as it had duly moved an application for approval of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords and thus contended that substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the order impugned. At the outset we may mention that time was granted to the learned counsel for the Revenue to come out with the fact that no application was filed by the assessee on September 4, 2000 as there was a specific claim before learned Assessing Officer himself that the application was filed along with supporting material. The Commissioner by an additional affidavit has placed on record the so-called letter dated September 4, 2000 and we notice on perusal of the said letter which is on the letter-head of Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank (erstwhile assessee) bearing Ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely K. C. Gupta and Mrs. Ruchi Bhargava were deputed to discuss on the subject and this letter also contained some information sought by the competent authority. The claim of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the said letter was not received on September 4, 2000 but then admittedly we notice that there is a seal of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-1st, Jaipur, with date of receipt being September 4, 2000, but learned counsel contends that this letter on information was not found on records. We fail to understand the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue. It was for the Revenue to have taken remedial measures in case the said letter was not available on record, which bears certainly seal of the receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
