JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 1040/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2096 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDAR MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR DHK
• Keywords: Competent authority; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 37(1); 139(5); 37; 28

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1040/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN, LAL KOTHI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. DCIT CIRCLE-2 REVENUE BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAAJJ0519R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1050/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 DCIT CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO. 310, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR CUKE VS. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN, LAL KOTHI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAAJJ0519R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDAR MEHTA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L.PODDAR (ADVOCATE) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17/05/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/05/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M. THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ANOTHER BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A )-1, JAIPUR DATED 15.09.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2013-14. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE T AKEN UP TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY ARE BEING DISPOSED BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT 1. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1040 /JP/2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-1, JAIPUR NOT ALL OWED AND NO ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE B ANK BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-1, JAIPUR NOT ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF RS. 4,91,27,253/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 36 (1)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR PAYMENT TO GRATUITY FUND I N REVISED RETURN. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVE CRAVE PERMISSION TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE FILING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTERLINKED AND TH E MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IS AGAINST DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 4,91,27,253/- C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 36(1)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE PAYMENT TO GRATUITY FUND IN THE REVISED RETURN. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 01.03.2016. WHILE FRAM ING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TO WARDS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE PF & ESI ON THE BASIS THA T THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED LATE AND ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF CONTRIBUTION INTO GROUP GRATUITY PREMIUM SCHEME OF RS. 4,91,27,253/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SIONS, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF & ESI. HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS GRAT UITY FUND. 3 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INADVERTENTLY THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT MADE SUCH CLAIM IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. THE CLAIM COULD BE MADE ONL Y AT THE TIME OF FILING THE REVISED RETURN. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE FILING OF REVISED RETURN OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE 21.03 .2015. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS BY FILING REVISED RETURN ON 24.2.2016. UNDISPUTEDLY TIME FOR FILING R ETURN U/S 139(5) HAD ALREADY ELAPSED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 120/JP/2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: - AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT NOW STOOD COVERED BY THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CAN FOR A.Y. 2010-11. EVEN LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS 2007-08 AND 08-09. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE REL EVANT OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 3.4 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APP ELLANT AND AOS CONTENTION. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL O N RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS A LSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. THE ASSESSEE BANK IS THE REGIONAL R URAL BANK WHICH IS ESTABLISHED UNDER UNDER THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS AC T, 1976. AS 4 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT PER CBDT CIRCULAR THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ARE COVE RED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THIS FACT ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN PREVIOUS YEARS . THE APPELLANT CREATED A GRATUITY TRUST WITH ASSOCIATION OF LIC FO R THE BENEFIT OF ITS EMPLOYEES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLA NT DEBIT AND PAID A SUM OF RS. 126656857/- TO LIC OF INDIA FOR G RATUITY FUND. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT FORMED A GRATUITY T RUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR PAYMENT OF DEATH CUM R ETIREMENT GRATUITY WITH LIC OF INDIA AND FILED AN APPLICATION ALONG WITH TRUST DEED AND OTHER NECESSARY PAPERS TO THE INCOME TAX D EPARTMENT ON 4/9/2000 FOR APPROVAL OF GRATUITY FUND. IT IS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT DEPOSITE D A SUM OF RS. 12,66,56,857/- TO THE LIC FOR THE GRATUITY FUND WHI CH IS ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IF NOT ALLOWED IN THIS SECTION THAN IT IS ALLOWED U/S 37(1 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN SUPPORT ARGUMENT APPELLANT HAS RE LIED ON RULINGS MENTIONED IN PARA 3.2 ABOVE IN WHICH TRIBUNAL, HON BLE HIGH COURT AND EVEN HONBLE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT IF THE PAY MENT MADE TO BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES THAN IT IS BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E AND ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ON PERUSAL OF DECISION OF JURISDICTION ITAT IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2007-08 & 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 940/JP/2011 & 196/JP/2012 RESPECTIVELY AND CIT(A) -1S ORDER FOR AY 10-11 VID E ITA NO. 259/12-13, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT CLAIM OF GRATUITY HAS BEEN ALLOWE D U/S 36(1)(V) READ WITH SECTION 40(A)(9) OF THE ACT. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO AN UNAPPROVED GRATUITY FUND WAS CONSIDE RED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2007-08 VID E ITS ORDER ITA NO. 940/JP/2011 DATED 31/10/2011 AND THE MATTER WAS DEC IDED IN ITS FAVOUR WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: .........ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATI ON FOR APPROVAL THEN SUCH APPROVAL WILL RELATE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLI CATION FOR APPROVAL HAS BEEN FILED. UNDER THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS B ENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., IN ITA NO. 702 /JP/09 DATED 16/07/2010 HAS HELD THE ALLOWABILITY OF PAYMENT OF GROUP GRATUITY SCHEME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE APPLICAT ION FOR APPROVAL. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIO N IN RESPECT OF ACTUAL GRATUITY PAYMENT. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 1.18 CRORES. THOUGH LD. C IT(A) HAS ALLOWED SUCH DEDUCTION U/S 37 YET WE HOLD THAT DEDUCTION IS ALLO WABLE U/S 36(1)(V) READ WITH SECTION 40A(9). IN CASE, THE APPROVAL OF GROUP GRATUITY SCHEME IS NOT 5 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT GIVEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THEN THE REVENUE W ILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURE AS PER LAW...... 9. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO UNAPPROVED GRATUITY FUND IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENS ES AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(V) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACE D ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE GRATUITY FUND IS APPROVED. HOWE VER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE, AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING WHETHER THE FUND HAS BEEN APPROVED OR NOT AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF TRIBUNALS ORDER I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE PERTAINING TO THE A.Y 2011-12. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 105 0/JP/2016. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. (A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 3735130/- MADE BY THE AO FOR DEPOSITING THE EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACTS. (B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HONBLE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING TH AT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 43B AND NOT BY SECTION 36(1)9VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 11. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL I S AGAINST DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 3735130/- CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE U/S 3 6(1)(V) OF THE ACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEPOSITING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION T O PF & ESI BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN THE RESPECTIVE AC TS. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT 13. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQAUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE LATTER DISREGARD TO THE BINDING OF THE JUDICIAL HIGH COURT HAS DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: DISALLOWANCE ON A/C OF PF & ESI ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF PF & ESI, IT IS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS OF EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTIONS TOWARDS THE PF & ESI BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME AS ALLOWED U/S 36(1) (VA) R.W.S 2(24)(X) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. DETAILS OF DEPOSITION OF P.F MONTH AMOUNT DUE DATE ACTUAL DATE APRIL 18,13,964/- 15.05.2012 23.05.2012 JULY 19,21,166/- 15.08.2012 24.08.2012 TOTAL 37,35,130/- THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE ALL OWABILITY OF THE SAME. IN RESPONSE THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THAT: SINCE PE AND ESI HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILLING OF RETURN THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE DE CISIONS OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7771 OF 2009) AND CIT. VS. (A) STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (B) JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD(2014) 363 ITR 70 (RA J.). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND ACCEPTA BLE BECAUSE A DISTINCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYE RS CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WHICH ARE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE SEPARATE PROVISIONS OF 7 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT SECTION 43B AND 36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 RESPECTIVELY. THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS TO B E TREATED AS INCOME U/S 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT ON RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VA) ON MAKING DEPOSIT WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACT. HON BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN T HE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANE R & JAIPUR AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. {2014} 99 DTR 131(RAJ.) (HC) HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B ARE NOT RELEVANT IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYE ES CONTRIBUTION TO P.F., THE SAME HAS BEEN CONTESTED BEFORE THE HONBL E APEX COURT THROUGH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP). THE RECENT DECISION O F HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DATED 26.12.2013 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJAR AT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RELIED UPON BY THE CIT IN HIS REPORT IS DIRECTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE AND FOR REASONS STATED ABOVE AND CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE OF 24 OF SE CTION 2, IT IS HELD THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE(X) OF C LAUSE (24) OF SECTION (2) APPLIES, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DEDU CTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 WITH RESPECT TO SU CH SUM CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA). WHILE GIVING THE SAID DECISION THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DISSENTED FROM THE VIEWS TAKEN BY SEVERAL HIGH COUR TS IN THE MATTER AND HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 7.12 AS UNDER:- WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, A ND AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE, ONLY ON VIEW IS POSSIBLE AS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND AS OBSERVED BY UNDER SECTION HEREIN ABO VE AND WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIMACHAL PRADE SH HIGH COURT; KARNATAKA HIGH COURT; RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND PUNJ AB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE, A ND THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE AND/ OR NOT TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS CONTESTED THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. {2014} 99 DTR 131(RAJ.)(HC) THROUGH SPECIAL LEAVE P ETITION IN HONBLE SUPREME COURT. SINCE THE MATTER IS SUB JUDICE BEFOR E THE APEX COURT, THE DEPARTMENTS STAND REMAINS THE SAME. 8 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS LATE PA YMENT OF RS. 37,35,130/- RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIB UTION TOWARDS PF IS NOT FOUND ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE & SAME IS HEREBY DI SALLOWED AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERR ED SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANE R & JAIPUR AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JAIPUR VIDYU T VITRAN NIGAM LTD. [2014] 99 DTR 131(RAJ.). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPEA L FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT BEEN OVERRULED BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 16. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFI CER IS CONTRARY TO THE BINDING PRECEDENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE THIS G ROUND RAISED IN REVENUE IN APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/05/2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) (BHAG CHAND) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 25/05/2017 9 ITA NOS. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016 JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN BHAWAN . VS. DCIT GANESH KUMAR VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK KISHAN B HAWAN, JAIPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT DCIT, JAIPUR 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1040 & 1050/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR