ISHA STEEL TREATMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T.-10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1671/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75260 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R PATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEKHAR GUPTA
• Section: 12; 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I, BENC H MUMBAI .., , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ./ ITA NO.1671/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) ISHA STEEL TREATMENT PVT. LTDS., 100, HARIYALI VILLAGE, LBS MARG, VIKHROLI (W), MUMBAI-400 083 VS. ACIT, CIR-10(3), MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 2583 F ( ! /APPELLANT ) .. ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) & /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHEKHAR GUPTA /REVENUE BY : SHRI V.R.PATIL ) * / DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH JANUARY, 2014 ) * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 TH JANUARY, 2014 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M.) : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A), DATED 27-1-2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, I N THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 . FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE :- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED N LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. DISALLOWING RS.18,29,000/-. ITA NO.1671/2011 2 3 . FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED GRATUITY OF RS. 21,85,182/- TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE E MPLOYEES COST. A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS AND EVIDENCES FOR THE SAME IN RESPONSE TO WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 3,56,862/- HAS BEEN MADE ON 30TH JULY, 2007, WHILE RS.18,44,301/- IS A PROVISION SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE A.O. TO PROVE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR APPROVED GRATUITY FUND. ACCORDINGLY , THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18,29,000/- U/S40A (7) BEING UN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT ISSUE ANY SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE FOR DISALLOWING THE SAM E AND HENCE, THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE GRATUITY SCHEME WAS IN OP ERATION FROM 01- 01-1992 FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY FOR APPROVAL ON 26-08-1993. THE GRATUITY SCHEME WAS APPROVED BY THE THEN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI CITY VI. HOW EVER, THE APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE CIT HAS BEEN MISPLACED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEY ARE TRYING TO GET A COPY OF THE SA ME FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT. AS EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL WAS GRANT ED BY THE CIT, A ITA NO.1671/2011 3 COPY OF LETTER DATED 27-01-1998 ADDRESSED BY ITO (P ROSEC)-VI., MUMBAI FOR FILING ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE APPROVED GRATUITY FUND WAS ALSO PLACED IN PAPER BOOK. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF TEXTOOL COMPANY LTD. (2013) 263 CTR 257 (SC). 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF GRATUITY UNDER S ECTION 40A(7), ON THE PLEA THAT IT IS AN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AS O N 31-3-2008 AND THAT GRATUITY FUND HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY A CHIEF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT GRATUITY PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE LIC AND SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON TH E BASIS OF ACTUAL PAYMENT AND IT WAS NOT MERELY A PROVISION. T HE ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THE SAME WERE ALSO ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ISSUE U NDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTOOL COMPANY LTD. (263 CTR 257) (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT MADE TO THE LIC ON ACCOUNT OF GROUP GRATUIT Y FUND IS A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37(1) (V). ITA NO.1671/2011 4 7 . FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DE BITED RS. 21,85,182/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT TOWARDS CONTRIBUTIO N TO LIC GRATUITY SCHEME. THE AO ALLOWED RS. 3,56,862/- BEING PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR AND DISALLOWED BALANCE OF RS. 18,29,000/- U/S 40A(7) ON THE PLEA THAT GRATUITY FUND WAS NOT APPROVED AND THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT SO MADE. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO. WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEES L IC GRATUITY SCHEME WAS IN OPERATION FROM 1.1.1992 FOR WHICH APP LICATION WAS ALSO MADE FOR APPROVAL ON 26-08-1993. THE ASSESSEE WAS C LAIMING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH CONTRIBUTION MADE TO L IC GRATUITY SCHEME IN THE EARLIER YEARS, HOWEVER NO DISALLOWANCE WAS M ADE, ONLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY AO. AS PER LD. AR, ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE METHOD OF CONTRIBUTING TO LIC GRATUITY SCHEME. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY INDORE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF STAT E BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 376 & 479/IND/2012, WHEREIN FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF THE BENCH WAS AS UNDER:- 4. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO DEALT BY US IN THE CASE O F INDORE PREMIER COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, INDORE, IN I.T.A. NOS. 221/IND/2011 AND I.T.A.NO. 23/IND/2012, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING WAS THE OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF THE BE NCH :- 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS TAKEN GR OUP GRATUITY CUM LIFE ASSURANCE POLICY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE YEAR 1976. SINCE THEN THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS PAYING REGULARLY PREMIUM TO LIC UNDER THIS POLICY A ND THE SAME WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER TH E HEAD OF ITA NO.1671/2011 5 GRATUITY CONTRIBUTION AND INCLUDED IN THE SALARY ALLOWANCE AND BHAWISHYA NIDHI. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 56.56 LAKHS. THUS, IN ADDITION TO PAYMENT MADE TO LIC AMOUNTING TO RS. 55 LAKHS, T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADDITIONAL GRATUITY TO SHRI SUNDE R LAL RS. 1.17 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT CON DITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 40A(7) HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED AS THE CONTRIBUTION BY THE BANK WAS NOT MADE TO APPROVED GRATUITY FUND. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS, PREMIUM W AS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO LIC WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SUCH CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT ONLY PROVISION BUT THERE WAS ACTUAL PAYMENT TO THE LIC. I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL ORE AN D FERTILIZERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, REPORTED AT 3 ITD (HYD) 593, HAS DEALT WITH SIMILAR ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE SAME U /S 37(1), NOTWITHSTANDING, THE FACT THAT GRATUITY FUND ESTABL ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RECOGNIZED U/S 40A(7) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE DECISION, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD T HAT 5. W E HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE PAYS PREMIUM ON WHAT IS KNO WN AS 'MASTER POLICY' ISSUED BY THE LIC UNDERTAKING TO HO NOR THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THE TRUST DEED AND THE RU LES OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORE AND FERTILIZER (INDIA) (P) LTD., SECUNDERABAD, EMPLOYEES' GROUP GRATUITY LIFE ASSURANCE SCHEME. CO PIES OF THE TRUST DEED AND THE RULES WERE MENTIONED IN THE PREA MBLE. THIS MASTER POLICY COVERS ONLY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY UNLIKE THE TRUST WHICH WAS A COMMON ONE. IN OTHER W ORDS, THE PAYMENT RELATES TO THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE T O ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. THE TRUST DEED UNDERTAKES OBLIGATIONS WH ICH ARE IN SUCH CASES AND IT WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN RECOGNIZED B UT FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS A COMMON FUND FOR A GROUP OF COMPA NIES. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE TRUST DEED SO AS TO WARRANT DISALLOWANCE ON ANY OTHER GROUND. MERELY BE CAUSE THE TRUST DEED IS CONVENIENTLY ADOPTED AS THE BASIS OF RECKONING THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SCHEME, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TRUST FUND CREATED BY THE TRUST DEED SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BEFO RE THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTIBILITY OF INSURANCE PREMIA IS GONE INTO. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ONLY A PROVISION OR PAYMENT EITHER OF PREM IUM OR OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRUST FUND, SECTION 40A(7) WOUL D HAVE SQUARELY APPLIED ; IN THAT EVENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE HA D NO CASE, BECAUSE THE CIT HAS NOT RECOGNIZED THE TRUST FUND. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE RECOGNITION OF TRUST FUND NEED NOT BE TIED UP WITH THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM. IF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS ALLOWA BLE ON MERITS IN LAW, IT WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED NOTWITHSTANDING NOT -RECOGNITION OF THE TRUST FUND. IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO GO INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE AUTHORITIES HAD TAKEN THE RIGH T VIEW IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR RECOGNITION. IN FACT, WE WONDER, WHETHER WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO GO INTO THIS QU ESTION AT ALL. AT ITA NO.1671/2011 6 ANY RATE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INSURANCE PRE MIUM IS A CHARGE ON THE PROFITS OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS A CONT RACTUAL PAYMENT MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICY ISSUE DON T HE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS IS TO SAFEGUARD THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FR OM ANY UNEXPECTED OR LARGE LIABILITY TOWARDS GRATUITY WHIC H IT MIGHT BE CALLED UPON TO MEET. LIABILITY FOR GRATUITY, THOUGH CERTAIN, THE QUANTIFICATION IS A MATTER OF ACCIDENT. ONLY R ETIREMENT ON SUPERANNUATION IS PREDICTABLE WHILE DEATH, INCAPABI LITY, VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AND RESIGNATION ARE NOT. IT IS, THEREFOR E, A MATTER OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THI S POLICY. IN FACT, THIS IS A STANDARD POLICY WHICH A NUMBER OF E MPLOYERS HAD AVAILED IN ORDER TO ENSURE THEIR ABILITY TO MEET TH E OBLIGATION. THE TRUST DEED BECOMES PART OF THE POLICY MERELY FOR TH E PURPOSES OF DEFINING THE EXTENT OF OBLIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE LIC. SUCH PAYMENT IS CLEARLY A BUSINESS DEDUCTION U/S 37. AS POINTED OUT, WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED U/S 40A(7)(A) IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DEDUCTION ALLOWED 'IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION (WHE THER CALLED AS SUCH OR BY ANY OTHER NAME), IF SUCH A PROVISION IS MADE, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE. IT HAS TO SATISFY TH E CONDITIONS MENTIONED U/S 40A(7)(A) WHICH PRESCRIBES RECOGNITION AS ONE P.F. THE PRIMARY CONDITIONS. A PAYMENT DUE AND ACTUALLY PAID UNDER A POLICY ISSUED BY THE LIC CAN NOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, BE DESCRIBED TO BE A PROVISION EVEN IF THE WIDEST MEAN ING WERE GIVEN TO THE WORD 'PROVISION'. THE SUPREME COURT HAD OCCA SION TO CONSIDER THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PROVISION' IN CON TRADICTION TO THE WORD 'RESERVE' IN THE SURTAX CASE, IN VAZIR-TOBACCO CO. LTD. VIS CIT (1981) 25 CTR (SC) 186 : (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). I N THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION, IN THE STATUTE, IT HELD THAT THE S ENSE OF THE MEANING SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT IS ATTRIBUTED TO IT BY MEN OF BUSINESS, TRADE AND COMMERCE. THE QUESTION OF MAKING A PROVIS ION ARISES WHERE THE PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IN THE ASSESSE E'S CASE THERE IS AN ACTUAL PAYMENT AND HENCE, IT CAN NOT AL SO BE A PROVISION AT THE SAME TIME THE PAYMENT, AS SEEN EAR LIER, IS TOWARDS AN OBLIGATION TO THE ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYEES. IT RELATES TO THE OBLIGATION IF THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, A RIGHTFU L CHARGE ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE YEAR. SINCE, WE HAVE HELD THAT SECT ION 40A(7) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE TWO AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT EVERY POSITION HAS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 40A(7) IT WAS PUT ON THE STATUTE BOOK. WHILE WE HAVE NO DIFFICULT Y IN ACCEPTING THIS PROPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT IT DOES NOT HELP IT AS SECTION 40A(7) IS NOT ATTRACTED AT ALL A S THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PROVISION AND HAD ONLY MADE A PAYMENT. SECTION 40A(7) WAS INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO AVOID COMPANIE S FROM AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION MERELY ON THE BAS IS OF PROVISION WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION ON THEIR PART TO SAFEGUARD T HEIR ULTIMATE ITA NO.1671/2011 7 LIABILITY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. HENCE, EVEN IN THE PU RPOSE OF LIGHT OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 40A(7), IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS UNREASONABLE. AT ANY RATE, IT I S A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FALLING U/S 37. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITL ED TO SUCCEED ON THIS POINT AND THE RELIEF CLAIMED FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. SINCE THIS IS THE ONLY GROUND FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 1975-76 AND 1978-79, THESE TWO APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DECLINE OF CLAI M OF RS. 55 LAKHS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE LIC DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF GROUP GRATUITY CUM LIC ASSURANCE POLICY OF ITS EMPLOYEES. 5. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED RS. 50, 00,000/- IN RETIRED EMPLOYEES BENEFIT SCHEME AND CLAIMED DED UCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER RETIRED EMPL OYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME TRUST. ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY DATED 26.9.2007 STATED THAT SUBSCRIPTION TOWARDS STATE BA NK OF INDORE RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME IN THE SUM OF RS. 50,00,000/- AND DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIM ED ON PAYMENT BASIS AND IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 40A (9) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEP TED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12 A AND PROVIDING OF MEDICAL BENEFITS TO THE RETIRED EMPLOY EES IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN SP ENT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WAS NOT ALLOWED. AGAINST THE ABOV E DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEF ORE US. AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF TRAVA NCORE, AS STATED ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS. 50 LAKHS TOWARDS CONTRIBUTI ON TO RETIRED EMPLOYEES BENEFIT SCHEME U/S 37(1) OF THE I NCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 8. RECENTLY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTOOL COMPANY LTD. (263 CTR 257) (SC) HAVE HELD THAT CONTRIBUTIONS TO APPROVED GRATUITY FUND, WHERE DIRECT PAYMENT IS MAD E TO LIC TOWARDS GROUP GRATUITY FUNDS IS TO BE ALLOWED. IT W AS FURTHER HELD THAT ITA NO.1671/2011 8 WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE FUND GRA TUITY BY THE LIC FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES AND ALL THE CONTRIBUTI ONS ARE MADE BY ASSESSEE IN THE SAID FUNDS, ULTIMATELY COMES BACK T O THE FUNDS APPROVED BY CIT. THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 36 1 (V) ARE SATISFIED. THEREFORE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTLY TO LIC TOWARDS GROUP GRATUITY FUND IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 36 1( 4) 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE AS A CONTRIBUTION TO LIC GRATUITY SCHEME, IF THE AO FINDS THAT ASSESSEE IS CONTINUOUSLY CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIO N, NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT SUCH GRATUITY FUND IS NOT APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER. WE DIRECT ACC ORDINGLY. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH JANUARY.2014. SD/- SD/- ( ) (SANJAY GARG) ( . . ) (R.C.SHARMA) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 0 DATED 8 /01/2014 SKS SR. P.S. ITA NO.1671/2011 9 %'( )( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDEN T. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-X, MUMBAI. 4. 5 / CIT 5. 6 '8 , * 8 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. #6 ' //TRUE COPY//