9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication filed by the assessee. The only explanation for delay in filing the appeal as per the application is that due to closing of the financial year and other events, there is delay in filing the appeal. The application of condonation of delay reads as under: "It is to state that CIT Appeal order was received on 28/02/2018 at out office. Therefore, due to closing of the Financial Year and other events were the reason to delay in filing appeal before your honour. I, sincerely, request your honour to condone the delay." It is pertinent to note that the financial year is closed on 31/3/2018, whereas the appeal has been filed on 25/05/2018. Therefore, even on 30/04/2018, the appeal could have been filed within limitation. Thus, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to Section 36(v) read with section 40A(7)(a) of I.T. Act regarding the disallowance the expenses provision of gratuity. The action of Ld. CIT (Appeal) is illegal and deserved to be set aside. 3. The assessee craves to add, amend or alter any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings/hearing." 5. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is regarding the disallowance of leave encashment expanses paid to Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The assessee has taken leave encashment policy from the LIC and paid the annual premium to the LIC of Rs. 31,53,596/-. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of expenditure on account of provision of leave encashment expenses on the ground that it is only a provision not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: "15. Apropos departmental appeal, the learned counsel contends that the assessee had taken a policy from LIC named as "Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Employee Group Leave Encashment Scheme". The policy was taken to pay its employees. As per estimates of LIC the total liability of the Appellant Bank towards leave encashment already accrued stood at Rs. 83,57,029/- as on 31.03.2008. However, Appellant paid Rs. 40,00,000/- by the end of FY 2007-08 and Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT. Accordingly debited only Rs. 40,00,000/- to its Profit & Loss Account against said payment. It is pertinent to note that after contribution of premium, the Appellant has no control over the same. Further, the employee's of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retirement or upon their death. Further reliance is placed on the order of ITAT Delhi Bench 'H' in the case of ACIT Vs. Nainital Bank Limited vide ITA No. 3606/Del/2011, which in turn relies on Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of Cit Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (supra) held that such payments to the LIC for leave encashment benefits is an allowable expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Kerela High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Latex Ltd. (2012) 209 Taxman 42. .................... ..................... 19. Apropos the departmental appeal, the assessee took a policy from LIC named as Jawahar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Employee Group Leave Encashment Scheme. The facts are mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied the claim on the ground that the payments made to the LIC on account of employees' gratuity fund is not an approved gratuity scheme as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(v) of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that this issue was also considered by this Tribunal in the case of Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) as well as in the subsequent decision dated 07/09/2018 in the case of Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 349/JP/2018. We note that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) vide order dated 14/08/2014 has considered this issue in para 17 as under: " Apropos ground No. 2 in respect of group gratuity scheme poli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
