DCIT, Jaipur V. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, Jaipur

ITA 638/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5463 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR DHK
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 638/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, KISHAN BHAWAN, LAL KOTHI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAAJJ 0519 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.R. MEENA (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADVOCATE) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/02/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2013 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. T HE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS. 10,05,10,240/- U/S 36(I)(V ) OF THE IT ACT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT MADE TO AN APPROVED GRATUITY F UND. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGIONAL RURAL BANK CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING AND FINANCE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED GRATUITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,05,10,240/- DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS WHETHER THE SAID FUND IS APPROVED BY 2 ITA NO. 638/JP/2013 A.Y. 2010-11. DCIT VS. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, JAIPUR. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM IN THE LINE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 36(I)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE AS SESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 09/12/2011, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD APPLIED BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BUT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE HA S NOT BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR. HE FILED ALL THE PAPERS RELATING TO APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DEDUCTION OF GRATUITY PAYMENT FOR GRATUITY FUN D TO LIC, IT WAS CLAIMED IT IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(I)(V) OF THE ACT OTHERWISE IT IS A LSO ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT AS EXPLAINED INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE B USINESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY HELD THAT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 36(I)(V) OF THE ACT, THE FUND MUST BE APPROVED BY T HE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY. IF IT IS NOT SHOWED FOR WHATEVER REASON THE EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SECTION 36(I)(V) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND HE DISALLOWED THE EX PENSES AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD A LLOWED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 940/JP/2011 ORDER DATED 31/10/2011. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND AT THE O UTSET, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO ARGUED THAT IN ASSESSEES 3 ITA NO. 638/JP/2013 A.Y. 2010-11. DCIT VS. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, JAIPUR. OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 196/JP/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ORDER DATED 17/10/2014, THE HONBLE BENCH HAD CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND DISMISSED THE R EVENUES APPEAL ON IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR ISSUE. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 BY THIS BENCH AND THE REVENUES APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THE EARLIER YEAR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVED TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/02/20 16. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12/02/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, JAIP UR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 638/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 4 ITA NO. 638/JP/2013 A.Y. 2010-11. DCIT VS. JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK, JAIPUR.