I.T.A. NO.:1091/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 1091/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE-VII, KOLKATA -VS.- M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,.....RESPONDENT , 76, GARDEN REACH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 043 [PAN : AAACH 7668 G] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI L.K.S. DEHIYA, CIT(D.R.), FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI S. JHAJARIA, A.R., FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 03, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 0 3, 2012 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) S ORDER DATED 26 TH MAY, 2011, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF GRATUITY LIABILITY OF RS.1,78,87,03 2/-, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING CASH BASIS FOR ACCOUNTING GRATUITY LIABILITIES AND SINCE NO I.T.A. NO.:1091/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 3 PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR NOR ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES. 2. WHEN THIS CASE WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS SQUARE LY COVERED, BY DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCHES IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2005 -06. COPIES OF THESE DECISIONS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE US. LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS ALSO GIVEN THESE COPIES, WAS ASKED TO GO THROUGH THESE DECISIONS AND LET US KNOW HIS TAKE ON THIS SUBMISSION AND THE ORDERS COPIES OF WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS INDEED COVERED BY DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ES TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MATTER IS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL GRATUITY LIABILITY WHICH IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, AND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS IN ERROR I N SIMPLY DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF GRATUITY LIABILITY BECAUSE THE GRATUITY LIABILITY WAS NOT AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. HE SUBMITS THAT HE HA S NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, EVEN AS HE VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE S TAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS STAND OF THE REVENUE. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE STAND OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN EARLIER YEARS, WE REMIT T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASCERT AIN ACTUAL GRATUITY LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR, IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES RET IRING DURING THE YEAR, I.T.A. NO.:1091/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 3 AND ALLOW THE SAME. TO THIS EXTENT, THE GRIEVANCE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. IT WAS SO PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY UPON CONCLUSION OF HE ARING. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 3 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.