M/s Haryana Tourism corporation Ltd., Chandigarh V. Addl. CIT, Panchkula

ITA 1140/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8411 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KEMWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH NAYYAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1140/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LTD., VS. THE ADDL.CIT , CHANDIGARH RANGE, PANCHKULA PAN NO. AAACH4108B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.S.KEMWAL ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANCHKULA DATED 23.6.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. A CT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND HAS BEEN PASSED IN A HASTE A ND HAS IGNORED BASIC ASPECTS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THUS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 65,00,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY PAYMENT MADE TO LIFE INSURANCE. THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE 2 CORRECTLY. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY AND DESERVES TO BE STRUCK OFF. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7496/-3 ON ACCOU NT OF EDLI EXPENSES. THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE CORRECTLY. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS ARBITRARY AND DESERVES TO BE STRUCK OFF. 2. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET STATED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1041/CHD/2009 DATED 24.2.2010 IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEE ITSELF AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 65 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY PAYMENTS MADE TO LIFE INSURANCE AND RS. 74,793/- ON ACCOUNT OF EDLI EXPEN SES. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL I S COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDIT URE ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY PAYMENT MADE TO LIFE INSURANCE AROSE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 006-07 AND ALSO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THOSE YEARS WAS THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ON A CCOUNT OF ACTUAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO RETIRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES RETIRING DURING THE YEAR, WHEREIN PAYMENTS WERE MAD E UP TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 3 07 IN ITA NOS. 1041/CHD/2009, IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.2.2010 IN TURN RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, R EMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ISSUES BEFORE US IS IN RESPECT OF TH E GRATUITY PAYMENTS. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 25.3.2009 IN ITA NOS. 1056 & 998/CHD/2008, THE MATT ER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CO NTAINED IN ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 (ITA NO. 116/CHANDI/2006) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN I TA NOS. 1056/CHD/2008 & 998/CHD/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 253.2 009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, HELD AS UNDER:- 5. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.63,12,628/- ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM PAID TO LIFE INSURANCE IN RESPECT OF GROUP GRATUITY SCHEME. AT THE OUTSET, I T WAS CLAIMED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. WITHOU T GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION WE HAVE FOUND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2008 (ITA NO.250/CHANDI/2008) THE SAME WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 (ITA NO.116/CHANDI/2006). CONSEQUENTLY, ON IDENTICAL LINES, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATIO N IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 6. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RAI SED BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE REMIT THE PRESENT ISSUE BAC K TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WIT H THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN ORDER RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 (SUPRA) AND IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. 4 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TH US ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE EARLIER APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2006-07 AND 2005-06 AND FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN THE EARLIER YEAR S, AS REFERRED HEREIN ABOVE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSE SSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WITH OUR EARLIER DIRECTIONS AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010, SD/- SD/- (N.BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR