9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for not allowing the claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(v) to the assessee - assessee should not suffer loss on account of inaction and lethargic attitude of the Revenue in granting the approval - deduction u/s.36(1)(v) cannot be denied on account of failure or delay in passing order of the application of the assessee on 14.08.2008 - though the order of granting approval was passed on 06.03.2017, the same should have made effective from the date of 14.08.2008 or at least effective from 01.04.2009 because in our view 6 months time is sufficient for considering process of application for approval u/s.36(1)(v) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1382/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2020 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Laliet Kumar, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l/any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The Ld. AR of the assessee has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein the Ld. CIT(Appeals) at Para 6.6 has noted as under: 6.6 During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 4,23,004/- towards contribution to gratuity fund. The AO disallowed the claim as the assessee have not received approval from the CIT. During appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that ₹ 4,23,004/- has been paid to LIC based gratuity fund. The appellant claims that application for approval was submitted before the Pr.CIT on 14.08.2008 and obtained approval on 06.03.2017. Ostensibly, the appellant has paid ₹ 4,23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also applied our mind to the decisions cited before us. Undisputedly, the assessee has an approved gratuity fund. It is also not in dispute that the assessee is regularly making payments towards gratuity of the employees in a gratuity scheme created with the LIC. The CIT(A) has disallowed the deduction claimed towards payment of gratuity only on the ground that the payment has not been made to the gratuity fund approved by the CIT, but, has been paid directly to the LIC. From the receipt obtained from LIC it is relevant to note that the amount of ₹ 1,75,81,818/- was paid as premium to the GGPE Scheme held in the name of the trustees of Sponge Iron India Ltd. employees gratuity fund, Hyderabad. Therefore, it has to be considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High Court, warranting our interference. 9. In the appeal before us, there is no dispute to the fact that the contribution towards payment of gratuity of the employees has been made to LIC, over which the assessee has absolutely no control. It is also not the case of the Department that the gratuity fund created with the LIC is not for the benefit of the employees. Further, Rule 101 of the IT Rules, 1962 authorizes making contribution under Group Gratuity Scheme entered with LIC. Therefore, considered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .36(1)(v) of the Act cannot be denied by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) when admittedly the order of approval was not passed by the Pr. CIT under the Act within the reasonable time. 2.3 The Ld. AR of the assessee had further submitted that though the approval was granted prospective however, it should be applied retrospectively from the date of making the application by the assessee i.e. 14.08.2008 as there was no default of the assessee in making the application. 3. The Ld. DR had submitted that the order of approval was issued by the Pr. CIT on 06.03.2017 and it was prospective in nature. Therefore, benefit of approval granted on 06.03.2017 cannot be allowed to the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
