Haryana Tourisma Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Panchkula

ITA 14/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57659 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH NAYYAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.14/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LTD., VS. THE D.C.I. T., SCO 17-18-19,SECTOR 17-B, PANCHKULA CIRCLE CHANDIGARH. PANCHKULA. PAN: AAACH4108B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 15.03.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 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 AND HAS I GNORED BASIC ASPECTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE THUS CAUSING UN DUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 80,99,579 ON ACC OUNT OF GRATUITY PAYMENT MADE TO LIFE INSURANCE. THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE CORRECTLY. THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY AND DESERVES TO BE STRUCK OFF. 2 2 SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE FACTS SOF THE CASE, AND THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, BY WHICH THE ADDITION ALREADY STANDS DELETED, THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ADHOC AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS.80,99,579 MAY KIND LY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3 THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET STATED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1041/CHD/2009 DATED 24.2.2010 AND ITA NO.1140/CHD/2 010 DATED 0.2.11.2010 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF AND THE MATTER WAS R ESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY P AYMENTS MADE TO LIFE INSURANCE AND RS.10,99,579/- ON ACCOUNT OF EDLI EXP ENSES. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAIS ED IN EARLIER YEARS AND IS COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 5. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF EXPEN DITURE ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY PAYMENT MADE TO LIFE INSURANCE AROSE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 06-07 AND 2007-08 AND ALSO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE 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 D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES RETIRING DURING THE YEAR, WHEREIN PAYMENTS WERE MADE UP TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 IN ITA NOS. 1041/CHD/2009, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.2.2010 IN TURN RELYING ON THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN 3 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, REMITTED 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 MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WITH T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT 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 CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.63,12,628/- ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM PA ID TO LIFE INSURANCE IN RESPECT OF GROUP GRATUITY SCHE ME. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THIS ISSUE IS AL SO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FACT UAL 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 V IDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2008 (ITA NO.250/CHANDI/2008) THE SAME WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-03 (ITA NO.116/CHANDI/2006). CONSEQUENTLY, ON IDENTI CAL LINES, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES . 6. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RAI SED BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06. 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 WITH T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 (SUPRA) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 6. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ALSO REM ITTED THE MATTER BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFICATION. 4 4 7. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE EARLIER APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2007-08, 2006-07 AND 2005-06 AND FOLLOWING OUR ORDERS IN THE EARLIER YEA RS, AS REFERRED HEREIN ABOVE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING O FFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WITH OUR EARLIER DIRECTIONS AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5 5