Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank, V. ACIT, SATNA

ITA 27/JAB/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 2722914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: AP SRIVASTAVA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 27/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND C M GARG JM] I.T.A. NO.: 27/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK .APPELLANT MARTAND COMPLEX, SECOND FLOOR, PILI KOTHI, REWA (MP) [PAN: AADCR1379R] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SATNA (MP) .RES PONDENT ITA NO. 2/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SATNA (MP) ...APPELLANT VS. REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK .RESPONDEN T MARTAND COMPLEX, SECOND FLOOR, PILI KOTHI, REWA (MP) [PAN: AADCR1379R] APPEARANCES BY: AP SRIVASTAVA , FOR THE ASSESSEE ABHISHEK SHUKLA , FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 25 , 2 014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 26 , 2014 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE , ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SAME ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS), AND WERE HEARD I.T.A. NO.: 27/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 5 TOGETHER. AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THEREFORE, BO TH THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 4. GROUND NOS. 1 AND ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESS EE AND ARE, AS SUCH, DISMISSED IN LIMINIE. 4. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS 11,59,845 BEING THE AMOUNT PAID AS GRATUITY DURING THE YEAR, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF SECTION 36(1)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE PAYMENT OF R S 11,59,845, WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO LIC GRATUITY FUND SCHEME, SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(V) BUT WHEN THE SECTI ON WAS READ OUT TO HIM WHICH RESTRICTS THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS AN APPRO VED GRATUITY FUND CREATED BY HIM FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF HIS EMP LOYEES UNDER AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST , HE SUBMITS THAT, IN THAT CASE, HE SHOULD BE ALLO WED DEDUCTION BY THE VIRTUE OF SECTION 40A (7)(B) AND T HIS CLAIM SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED UPON. HE SUBMITS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) H AS DECLINED THIS DEDUCTION UNDER THE RESIDUAL HEAD AS WELL. HE STATES THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION DE NOVO. I.T.A. NO.: 27/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 5 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIES UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE ACTUAL GRATUITY PAYM ENTS BY THE ASSESSEE NOR DO WE FIND ANY SUPPORT FOR THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS EMBEDD ED IN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO EVID ENCE THE NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS, IN A VERY ERUDITE DISCUSSION, HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS 11,59,845 I S INADMISSIBLE BUT THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN SEEM TO HAVE ADDED B ACK THE SAME. IN PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S OBSERVED AS FOLLOW: .IN COMPANY HAS, IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, DEBITED AN AMOUNT FOR PROVISION OF GRATUITY AT RS 2,56,71,094. THE ASSESSEE BANK IS SHOWN TO HAVE ACTUALLY PAID RS 11,59,849 WH ICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. THE BALANCE PROVISION OF RS 2 ,56,71,094, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT. T HE SAID AMOUNT IS, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO INCOME. 8. IT WOULD THUS APPEAR TO US THAT NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY PAID, NOR DO WE FIND ANY SUCH ADDITION IN THE COMPUTATION GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. YET, SINCE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE MERITS OF DISALLOWANCE IN SUCH GREAT DETAIL, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE ACTUAL FACTS. THERE IS NO FINDING ON THE NATURE OF PAYMENT EITHER. IN VIEW OF THIS SITUATION , WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH AD JUDICATION ON ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE ONLY. IN CASE, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT M ADE ANY SUCH DISALLOWANCE, MATTER RESTS THERE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, MATTER S TANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. I.T.A. NO.: 27/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 5 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 10. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS FOLLOWS: THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW (I) IN DELETING TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS 1,73,01,250 UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 194A. 11. THE SHORT REASON FOR IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS T HAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED 15G/15H IN RESPECT OF PERSONS IN WHOSE CASES TAXES WERE NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT TH ESE FORMS WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN GOOD TIME. IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) D ELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY ORDER DA TED 5 TH JUNE 2012 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, EVEN AS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMEN TLY RELIES UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER DATED 5 TH JUNE 2012, WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED AS ATTACHING TO A ND FORMING PART OF THIS ORDER, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 13. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TH US DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO.: 27/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 5 14. TO SUM UP, WHILE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- C M GARG PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR