THE STATE BANK OF INDORE, V. THE ACIT 5(1),

ITA 25/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7181 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Keywords: Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 12A; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AAECS7776C I.T.A.NO. 25/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2006 - 07 STATE BANK OF INDORE, INDORE VS ACIT, 5(1), INDORE. APPELL ANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.NARESH, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. KARAN, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 05 . 0 4 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 4 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 22.10.2010. 2. ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO RETIRED EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL -: 2: - 2 BENEFIT SCHEME WAS NOT DISPOSED OF IN THE ORDER DAT ED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2011, DUE TO APPROVAL OF COD BEING NOT OB TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M. A. NO.138/IND/2012 DATED 5 TH APRIL, 2013, WHEREIN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA, 322 I TR 58. THIS ISSUE WAS RECALLED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. THE BRIEF CONTROVERSY RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME. DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE U/S 37(1)OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE IN I.T.A.NO. 861/COCH/2005 ORDER DATED 8.8.2007, WHEREIN FOLLOWI NG WAS THE OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF THE BENCH :- 16. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BANK IN RESPECT OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME AMOUNTING TO RS. 50 LAKHS AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS WHICH WAS ASSESSEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO -: 3: - 3 RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'MEDICAL SCHEME'). ON THE PERUSAL OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT UNDER S. 44AB, THE AO PROPOSED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CONTRIBUTION AS THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISIONS OF S. 40A(9) OF THE IT ACT ARE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND HENCE IT WAS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER S. 37 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 40A(9) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS BONA FIDE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT DOUBTED. THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH THE GROUNDS AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 LAKHS WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BANK. -: 4: - 4 17. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAASI CEMENT LTD. VS. ITO (1993) 47 TIJ (HYD) 254 : (1993) 45 ITD 233 (HYD) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND HENCE THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ATTRACT THE MISCHIEF OF S. 40A(9) OF THE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. THE CIT(A) ALSO ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE UNDER S. 37 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD. (2000) 161 CTR (KER) 124. 18. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT AT ALL PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE -: 5: - 5 PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RAASI CEMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 198 CTR (AP) 179 : (2005) 275 ITR 579 (AP). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT PRESUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK MADE THE CONTRIBUTION IN CONSEQUENCE OF HONOURING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATE BANKS AND BANK OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION. IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE SAME CONTRIBUTION WAS FOR FLOATING THE FUNDS AND THERE IS A SPECIFIC BAR FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 40A(9) OF THE ACT. 19. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSOCIATE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HAS RAISED SOME DEMANDS ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SBI AND ITS SUBSIDIARY BANKS. ONE OF THE DEMANDS WAS FORMULATION OF MEDICAL SCHEME FOR THE RETIRED OFFICERS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DEMANDS OF THE ASSOCIATE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, A MEETING OF THE -: 6: - 6 MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATE BANKS AND THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE ASSOCIATION WAS HELD AT SIMLA ON 23RD JUNE, 1997. IN THE SAID MEETING, NEGOTIATIONS WERE HELD IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENT DEMANDS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND IT WAS REDUCED INTO WRITING. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REFERRED TO THE MINUTES OF THE BIPARTITE MEETING HELD ON 23RD JUNE, 1997 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PART OF SETTLEMENT OF THE DEMANDS WITH THE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, IT WAS AGREED IN PRINCIPLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEME AND AS A PART OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SBI AND THE ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION/UNION, IT WAS DECIDED TO CONTRIBUTE RS. 50 LAKHS RECEIVED FOR FORMULATION OF THE SCHEME FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES WHO WERE WILLING TO PAY A CONTRIBUTION FEE. THE LEARNED CHARTERED -: 7: - 7 ACCOUNTANT ALSO REFERRED TO THE SCHEME WHICH IS NAMED AS 'RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME' COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST OBJECT OF CONCEDING TO THE DEMAND OF THE ASSOCIATION WAS TO MAINTAIN A HEALTHY INDUSTRIAL RELATION WITH THE OFFICERS. 20. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE DISTINCTION MADE UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES AS WORKMEN AND OTHER THAN WORKMEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SMOOTH WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE BANK BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE OFFICERS ARE ALSO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THIS SCHEME IS DEMANDED BY THE PRESENT EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK WHICH WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THEM ALSO AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REFERRED TO THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF -: 8: - 8 THE SCHEME AND HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A BONA FIDE SCHEME FOR WHICH SBI AND OTHER ASSOCIATE BANKS MADE THEIR CONTRIBUTION. AS FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF S. 40A(9) IS CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCTION OF S. 40A(9) BY GIVING REFERENCE TO THE FINANCE BILL, 1984 THAT IT IS INTRODUCED TO AVOID THE TAX EVASION IN THE GUISE OF DONATION TO TRUST AND THE FLOWBACK OF THE SAME AMOUNT TO THE EMPLOYER AGAIN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF S. 4 0A(9) ARE TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE CONTEXT FOR WHICH IT I S BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT AS THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BANK IS A PART OF THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE OFFICERS' UNION, IT IS OUT OF B USINESS -: 9: - 9 EXPEDIENCY. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FURTHE R ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF RASSI CEMENT LTD. (SUPRA ), THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAID ASSESSEE'S MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND ON THAT BASIS, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS A UNILATERAL ACT ON THE PART OF THE SAID ASSESSEE COMPANY TO MAKE THE PAYMENT AND HENCE THOUGH THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASSI CEMENT LTD. (SUPRA), THE SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUI SHABLE ON FACTS. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE AS PER RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE US. FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BANK TO THE MEDICAL SCHEME, WE HAVE DIRECTED THE -: 10: - 10 ASSESSEE BANK TO FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ACT (SIC-ASSESSEE) HAS FILED THE COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: SR. NO. DATE PARTICULARS 1. 15-91997 LETTER FROM SBI TO THE ASSESSEE BANK INFORMING THE MINUTES OF THE BIPARTITE MEETING HELD WITH ASSOCIATE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ON 23-61997 AT SIMLA 2. 23.6.1997 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BIPARTITE MEETING HELD BETWEEN SBI AND BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 3. 1.11.1999 COPY OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL SCHEME THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS IN RESPECT OF APPLICABILITY OF S. 40A(9) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE F ACTS AVAILABLE BEFORE US, THE ASSOCIATE BANK OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'UNION') HA D RAISED SOME DEMANDS FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF SBI -: 11: - 11 AND ITS SUBSIDIARY BANKS AND ONE OF THE DEMANDS WAS FORMULATION OF MEDICAL SCHEME FOR THE RETIRED OFFICERS. NEGOTIATIONS WERE HELD BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION AT SIMLA ON 23RD JUNE, 1997 AND IT WAS AGREED IN PRINCIPLE ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT MEDICAL SCHEME FOR THE RETIRED OFFICE RS WOULD BE FORMULATED AS STATED HEREINABOVE. THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS FILED A COPY OF TH E MINUTES OF THE BIPARTITE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE COPY OF THE SCHEME IN RESPECT OF THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL BENEFIT. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID SCHEME, IT IS SEEN THAT THE FUND IS TO BE CREA TED WITH THE CONTRIBUTION FROM THE BANK AS WELL AS PENSIONERS AND FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUNDS, A MANAGING COMMITTEE WAS FORMED. AS PER THE SCHEME, EACH MEMBER TO THE SCHEME AND HIS/HER RESPECTIVE SPOUSE ARE THE BENEFICIARIES. IT IS FURT HER PROVIDED THAT THE SPOUSE OF THE MEMBER WILL CONTINU E TO RECEIVE THE BENEFIT EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE MEMBER. CERTAIN AILMENTS AND DISEASES WERE -: 12: - 12 SPECIFIED WHICH WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE SCHEME AND THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF REIMBURSEMENT WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 30,000. AS PER THE TERMS OF BIPAR TITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATE BANK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION, THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 50 LAKHS AS IT S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE FORMULATION OF THE FUND UNDER THE SCHEME. 22. IT IS NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SUB-SO (9) OF S. 40A OF THE ACT. SUB-SO (9) OF S. 40A WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1984 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1980. THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE NEW PROVISION WAS EXPLAINED BY THE BOARD IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 387 DT. 6TH JULY, 1984 AS UNDER: 16.1 SUMS CONTRIBUTED BY AN EMPLOYER TO A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND, AN APPROVED SUPERANNUATION FUND AND AN APPROVED GRATUITY FUND ARE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING HIS TAXABLE PROFITS. -: 13: - 13 EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED ON THE WELFARE OF EMPLOYEES IS ALSO ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. INSTANCES HAVE COME TO NOTICE WHERE CERTAIN EMPLOYERS HAVE CREATED IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS, OSTENSIBLY FOR THE WELF ARE OF EMPLOYEES, AND TRANSFERRED TO SUCH TRUSTS SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION. SOME OF THESE TRUSTS HAVE BEEN SET UP AS DISCRETIONARY TRUS TS WITH ABSOLUTE DISCRETION TO THE TRUSTEES TO UTILISE THE TRUST PROPERTY IN SUCH MANNER AS THEY MAY THINK FIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT ANY SCHEME OR SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PROPER DISBURSEMENT OF THESE FUNDS. INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS HAS ALSO BEEN LEFT TO THE COMPLETE DISCRETION OF THE TRUSTEES. SUCH TRUST S ARE, THEREFORE, INTENDED TO BE USED AS A VEHICLE FO R TAX AVOIDANCE BY CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH MAY EVEN FLOW BACK TO THE EMPLOYER IN THE FORM OF DEPOSITS OR INVESTMENT IN SHARES, ETC. 16.2 WITH A VIEW TO DISCOURAGING CREATION OF SUCH -: 14: - 14 TRUSTS, FUNDS, COMPANIES, AOP, SOCIETIES, ETC., THE FINANCE ACT HAS PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE PROFITS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER TOWARDS THE SETTING UP OR FORMATION OF OR AS CONTRIBUTION TO ANY FUND, TRUST, COMPANY, AOP, BOI, OR SOCIETY OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTION FOR ANY PURPOSE , EXCEPT WHERE SUCH SUM IS PAID OR CONTRIBUTED (WITHI N THE LIMITS LAID DOWN UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS) TO A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND OR AN APPROVED GRATUITY FUND OR AN APPROVED SUPERANNUATION FUND OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF AND TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW. 16.3 WITH A VIEW TO AVOIDING LITIGATION REGARDING T HE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIMS FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN RECENT YEARS TO SUCH TRUSTS, ETC., THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 1ST APRIL, 1980. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO AVOID HARDSHIP IN CASES WHERE SUCH TRUSTS, FUNDS, ETC., -: 15: - 15 HAD BEFORE, 1ST MARCH, 1984, BONA FIDE INCURRED EXPENDITURE (NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE) WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SUMS CONTRIBUTED BY HIM SUCH EXPENDITURE WILL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE PROFITS OF TH E ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR IN WHICH SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN SO INCURRED, AS IF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EFFECT OF THE UNDERLINED WORDS WILL B E THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PROVISION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AS FOR INSTANCE, S. 40A(S), WHICH WOULD OPERATE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THEY WOULD HAVE OPERATED HAD SUCH EXPENDITURE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY. DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PROVISION WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF NO DEDUCTION, HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE I N AN EARLIER YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE SUM CONTRIBUTED B Y HIM TO SUCH TRUST, FUND, ETC. -: 16: - 16 16.4 THE FINANCE ACT HAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OR IN THE INSTRUMEN T CREATING THE TRUST OR FUND, THE ASSESSEE MAY, AT HI S OPTION, CLAIM THAT THE UNEXPENDED AMOUNT SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE AND, WHERE SUCH A CLAIM IS SO MADE, SUCH UNEXPENDED AMOUNT SHALL BE RETURNED BY THE TRUSTEE TO THE ASSESSEE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO CLAIM THAT ANY ASSET BEING LAND, BUILDING, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED BY THE FUND, TRUS T, COMPANY, AOP, BOI, SOCIETY OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTION OUT OF THE SUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BE TRANSFERRED TO HIM AND WHERE ANY SUCH CLAIM IS SO MADE SUCH ASSET SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.' 23. SUB-S. (10) TO S. 40A WAS ALSO INTRODUCED AT THE SAME TIME FOR GIVING RELIEF, IT BEING IN THE TRANSITIONAL STAGE -: 17: - 17 AND THAT WAS TO ENSURE THE BONA FIDE CONTRIBUTION MADE BEFORE THE 1ST MARCH, 1984. SUB-SECTION (10) AND SUB-SO (11) HAD A LIMITED APPLICATION TO CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BETWEEN 1ST APRIL, 1979 TO 1ST MARCH, 1984. SEC. 40A(9) READS AS UNDER : 40A(9). NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER TOWARDS THE SETTING UP OR FORMATION OF, OR AS CONTRIBUTION TO, ANY FUND, TRUST, COMPANY, AOP, BOI , SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 (21 OF 1860), OR OTHER INSTITUTION FOR AN Y PURPOSE, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH SUM IS SO PAID, FOR THE PURPOSES AND TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY OR UNDER C1. (IV) OR C1. (V) OF SUB-SO (1) OF S. 36, OR AS REQUI RED BY OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. ON A BARE READING OF THE SAID PROVISION, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT ANY SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER TOWARDS SETTING UP OR FORMATION OF OR AS CONTRIBUTION TO ANY FUND, TRUST, COMPANY, AOP, BOI, -: 18: - 18 ETC. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY OR UNDER CLS. (IV) AND (V) OF S. 36( 1) OR REQUIRED BY OR UNDER ANY OT HER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. 24. SEC. 40A(9) HAD COME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF RAASI CEMENT LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE COMPANY WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PORTLAND CEMENT HAD MADE THE NECESSARY CONTRIBUTION TO RAASI CEMENTS EMPLOYEES WELFARE TRUST AND RAASI CEMENTS EXECUTIVE WELFARE TRUST AMOUNTING TO RS. 150 LAKHS. AS PER THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE CONTRIBUTION TO RAASI CEMENTS EXECUTIVE WELFARE TRUST WAS AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION AND CONTRIBUTION TO RAASI CEMENTS EXECUTIVE WELFARE TRUST WAS NOT PURSUANT TO ANY -: 19: - 19 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAID COMPANY AND ITS EXECUTIVES. ON THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN (1993) 47 TTJ (HYD) 254 : (1993) 45 ITD 233 (HYD) (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN M/S RAASI CEMENTS EXECUTIVE WELFARE TRUST WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 25. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, FORMULATION OF THE MEDICAL SCHEME FOR THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES WAS ONE OF THE DEMANDS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION AND BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATE BANK AND THE UNION AT SIMLA. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE -: 20: - 20 DISTINCTION MADE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES AS WORKMEN AND OTHER THAN WORKMEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SMOOTH WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE BANK BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE OFFICERS ARE ALSO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK. THE DEMAND FOR THE SCHEME BY THE PRESENT EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK IS ALSO BENEFICIAL TO THEM AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT. IT WAS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATE BANK'S MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION AND IT WAS A BONA FIDE FORMULATION OF THE FUNDS. IN OUR OPINION, WHETHER IT IS AN ASSOCIATION OR UNION OF THE EXECUTIVES OR NON-EXECUTIVES, BOTH CAN HAMPER THE SMOOTH WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE BANK BY RESORTING TO STRIKE OR GO-SLOW OR OTHER COERCIVE MEASURES IF THEIR DEMANDS ARE NOT SETTLED AND THIS ASPECT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR KEEPING A HEALTHY RELATION WITH ITS EMPLOYEES AS A GOOD BUSINESSMAN. -: 21: - 21 26. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT ARE CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO AND THAT CAN BE USED AS AN AID FOR INTERPRETING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT FOR INTRODUCING A PARTICULAR PROVISION OR ENACTMENT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARQHESE VS. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). THE CBOT HAS ISSUED THE CIRCULAR NO. 387, DT. 6TH JULY, 1984 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. THE BASIC INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR INSERTION OF SUB-SO (9) TO S. 40A IS FOR DISCOURAGING THE PRACTICE OF CREATION OF CAMOUFLAGE TRUST FUNDS, ETC. OSTENSIBLY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES AND TRANSFERRING HUGE SUMS TO SUCH TRUSTS BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION. SOME OF THE TRUSTS ARE TO BE CREATED OR SET UP AS A DISCRETIONARY TRUST WITH ABSOLUTE -: 22: - 22 DISCRETION TO THE TRUSTEES TO UTILIZE THE TRUST PROPERTIES IN SUCH MANNER WITHOUT ANY PROPER SCHEME OR SAFEGUARDS. MOREOVER, THE INVESTMENT OF THE TRUST CORPUS WAS ALSO LEFT TO THE COMPLETE DISCRETION OF THE TRUSTEES AND IT WAS SEEN THAT MANY A TIMES, THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE EMPLOYER USED TO FLOW BACK IN THE FORM OF DEPOSIT OR INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES, ETC. AND TO CHECK SAID MODUS OPERANDI ON THE PART OF THE DISHONEST ASSESSEES USING IT AS AN EFFECTIVE DEVICE FOR AVOIDING THE LEGITIMATE TAX, SUB-SO (9) WAS INSERTED. AT THE SAME TIME, TO AVOID HARDSHIPS IN THE CASE WHERE SUCH TRUST, FUNDS, ETC. HAD BEEN BONA FIDE SET UP WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES MORE PARTICULARLY PRIOR TO 1ST APRIL, 1984, SUB-SO (10) WAS ALSO INSERTED TO S. 40A. IN OUR OPINION, THE -: 23: - 23 PROVISIONS OF S. 40A(9) SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY HARM TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BONA FIDE AND THE SAID PROVISION IS MEANT TO APPLY ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRUST FUNDS, SOCIETY, ETC. CREATED BY EMPLOYER OR COMING UNDER HIS CONTROL SO THAT THE EMPLOYER IS IN A POSITION TO DIRECT THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FUNDS SO CONTRIBUTED BY HIM AND NOT TO ALL SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE BONA FIDE. 27. AS STATED HEREINABOVE, THE CONTRIBUTION BY THE ASSESSEE BANK IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO THAT IT IS NOT BONA FIDE. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF RAASI CEMENT LTD. (SUPRA), THE CONTRIBUTION TO RAASI CEMENTS EXECUTIVE WELFARE TRUST WAS NOT IN PURSUANCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THAT ASSESSEE AND ITS EXECUTIVES AND HENCE IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, THE CONTRIBUTION WAS HIT BY SUB- -: 24: - 24 SO (9) OF S. 40A. MOREOVER, ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED HERE IS THAT IF WE GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR CITED ABOVE, THE SAID PROVISION WOULD HAVE APPLICATION WHERE THE FUNDS ARE UNDER THE TOTAL CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FUND IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE OF HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAASI CEMENT LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT HELPFUL. IN OUR FURTHER CONSIDERED OPINION, THE BONA FIDE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER TO THE FUND SET UP AS A PART OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE BANK AND ITS EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES IS NOT HIT BY SUB-SO (9) OF S. 40A. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. -: 25: - 25 4. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO DEALT BY US IN THE CASE OF I NDORE 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 AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS TAKEN GROUP 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 AND THE SAME WAS DEBITED T O THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OF GRAT UITY 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, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADDITIONAL GRATUITY TO SHRI SUNDER LAL RS. 1.17 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT CONDITIONS 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 DISPUT E -: 26: - 26 THAT IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS, PREMIUM WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO LIC WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SUCH CONTRIBUTION WA S NOT ONLY PROVISION BUT THERE WAS ACTUAL PAYMENT TO THE LIC. I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIO NAL ORE AND FERTILIZERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, REPORT ED AT 3 ITD (HYD) 593, HAS DEALT WITH SIMILAR ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE SAME U/S 37(1), NOTWITHSTANDING, THE FA CT THAT GRATUITY FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RECOGNIZED U/S 40A(7) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE DECISION, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT 5. W E HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE PAYS PREMIUM ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS 'MASTER POLICY' ISSUED BY THE LIC UNDERTAK ING TO HONOR THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THE TRUST DE ED AND THE RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORE AND FERTILIZER ( INDIA) (P) LTD., SECUNDERABAD, EMPLOYEES' GROUP GRATUITY LIFE ASSURANCE SCHEME. COPIES OF THE TRUST DEED AND THE RULES WERE MENTIONED IN THE PREAMBLE. THIS MASTER P OLICY COVERS ONLY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY -: 27: - 27 UNLIKE THE TRUST WHICH WAS A COMMON ONE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PAYMENT RELATES TO THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. THE TRUST DEED UNDERTAKES OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE IN SUCH CASES AND IT WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN RECOGNIZED BUT FOR THE FACT TH AT IT WAS A COMMON FUND FOR A GROUP OF COMPANIES. IN OTHE R WORDS, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE TRUST DEED SO AS TO WARRANT DISALLOWANCE ON ANY OTHER GROUND. MER ELY BECAUSE THE TRUST DEED IS CONVENIENTLY ADOPTED AS T HE BASIS OF RECKONING THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SCHEME , IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TRUST FUND CREATED BY THE TR UST DEED SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BEFORE THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTIBILITY OF INSURANCE PREMIA IS GONE INTO. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ONLY A PROVISION OR PAYMENT EITHE R OF PREMIUM OR OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRUST FUND, SECTI ON 40A(7) WOULD HAVE SQUARELY APPLIED ; IN THAT EVENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE HAD NO CASE, BECAUSE THE CIT HA S 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 -: 28: - 28 MERITS IN LAW, IT WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED NOTWITHST ANDING NOT-RECOGNITION OF THE TRUST FUND. IT IS, THEREFORE , NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO GO INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER TH E AUTHORITIES HAD TAKEN THE RIGHT VIEW IN REJECTING T HE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR RECOGNITION. IN FACT, WE WONDE R, WHETHER WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO GO INTO THIS QU ESTION AT ALL. AT ANY RATE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IN SURANCE PREMIUM IS A CHARGE ON THE PROFITS OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS A CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLI CY ISSUE DON THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS I S TO SAFEGUARD THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ANY UNEXPECTED OR LARGE LIABILITY TOWARDS GRATUITY WHICH IT MIGHT BE CALLED UPON TO MEET. LIABILITY FOR GRATUITY, THOUGH CERTAI N, 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 , THEREFORE, A MATTER OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THIS POLICY. IN FACT, THIS IS A STANDARD POLICY WHICH A NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS HAD AVAILED IN O RDER -: 29: - 29 TO ENSURE THEIR ABILITY TO MEET THE OBLIGATION. THE TRUST DEED BECOMES PART OF THE POLICY MERELY FOR THE PURP OSES 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 (WHETHER CALLED AS SUCH OR BY ANY OTHER N AME), IF SUCH A PROVISION IS MADE, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY S TILL BE ELIGIBLE. IT HAS TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS MENTIONE D 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 ST RETCH OF IMAGINATION, BE DESCRIBED TO BE A PROVISION EVEN IF THE WIDEST MEANING WERE GIVEN TO THE WORD 'PROVISION'. THE SUPREME COURT HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PROVISION' IN CONTRADICTION TO THE WORD ' RESERVE' IN THE SURTAX CASE, IN VAZIR-TOBACCO CO. LTD. VIS C IT (1981) 25 CTR (SC) 186 : (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). I N THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION, IN THE STATUTE, IT HELD TH AT THE SENSE OF THE MEANING SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT IS ATTR IBUTED -: 30: - 30 TO IT BY MEN OF BUSINESS, TRADE AND COMMERCE. THE QUESTION OF MAKING A PROVISION ARISES WHERE THE PAY MENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE THERE IS AN ACTUAL PAYMENT AND HENCE, IT CAN NOT ALSO BE A PROV ISION AT THE SAME TIME THE PAYMENT, AS SEEN EARLIER, IS T OWARDS AN OBLIGATION TO THE ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYEES. IT RELAT ES TO THE OBLIGATION IF THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, A RIGHTFU L CHARGE ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE YEAR. SINCE, WE HAVE HELD TH AT SECTION 40A(7) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH E ASSESSEE'S CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE T WO AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT EVERY PO SITION HAS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 40A(7) I T 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 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PROVISION AND HAD ONLY MADE A PAYMENT. SECTION 40A( 7) WAS INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO AVOID COMPANIES FROM AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION MERELY ON THE BAS IS OF -: 31: - 31 PROVISION WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION ON THEIR PART TO SAFEGUARD THEIR ULTIMATE LIABILITY TO THEIR EMPLOYE ES. HENCE, EVEN IN THE PURPOSE OF LIGHT OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 40A(7), IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSE E'S CLAIM IS UNREASONABLE. AT ANY RATE, IT IS A LEGITIM ATE CLAIM FALLING U/S 37. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED ON THIS POINT AND THE RELIEF CLAIMED FOR ALL THE FO UR YEARS IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. SINCE THIS IS THE ONLY G ROUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT 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 CLAIM OF RS. 55 LAKHS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE LIC DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION 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 DEDUCT ION U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO -: 32: - 32 JUSTIFY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER RETIRED EMPLOYE ES 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 CLAIMED O N 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 12A AN D 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 SPENT 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 CO ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, AS S TATED ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW ASS ESSEES CLAIM OF RS. 50 LAKHS TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION TO RETIRED EMP LOYEES BENEFIT SCHEME U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1. -: 33: - 33 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH APRIL, 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :8TH APRIL, 2013. CPU* 584