TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be affected by restricting in the State Public Enterprises, as a result of this process, these expenses have been correctly claimed by the assessee. Allow the expenses as being covered by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT for A.Y. 2006-07. - ITA No. 893/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM Revenue by : Shri Kailash Mangal (JCIT) Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25/09/2012 passed by the learned CIT (A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2009-10. The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1) Holding prior period expenses as allowable expense even when it was not in accordance with the accounting policies followed by the assessee. 2) Allowing deduction for the contribution of ₹ 46,28,663/- made to an unapproved gratuity fund. 3) Holding contribution to state renewal fund as allowable expenditure though it is not actual expenditure. 2. The 1st ground of revenue s appeal is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant in A.Y. 2006-07, facts being same this year, the A.O. is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 8,76,224/- as these expenses crystallized during the year and should be allowed. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and prayed for confirmation of the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld CIT(A) and argued that this case is covered by the Hon ble ITAT s decision for A.Y. 2006- 07. Therefore, same may be allowed. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a government company. The genuineness of the expenses has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) had followed the Coordinate Bench decision passed in ITA No. 307/JP/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 on identical fact, therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). 6. The 2nd ground of appeal is against allowing the deduction for contribution of ₹ 46,28,663/- made to an unapproved gratuity fund. The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had paid ₹ 1,92,82,60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 and again in A.Y. 2000- 01 in ITA No. 85/JP/2002 dated 15/09/2006 allowed the claim of the assessee following the same, we dismiss the ground No. 1 of the revenue. Respectfully following Hon ble ITAT order in the appellant s own case in A.Y. 2006-07 cited above the A.O. is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 46,28,663/- in A.Y. 2009-10 as the issue is covered by Hon ble ITAT Jaipur Bench order in the case of the appellant itself. As obvious from the above discussion on this issue the disallowance of ₹ 1,92,82,605/- in respect to contribution to gratuity fund is deleted. 8. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has supported the order of the ld CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The issue is identical to A.Y. 2006-07, which has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 307/JP/2009 in assessee s own case. As the assessee has applied for its approval in time but formal approval had not been issued by the department, therefore, there is no fault ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under:- After going through rival submissions it is seen that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant vide Hon ble ITAT Bench A jaipur order dated 22/05/2009 in ITA No. 233/JP/2009 in A.Y. 2006-07 . Relevant para 6 of Hon ble ITAT order is quoted below: We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that as per the memorandum of State Renewal Fund set up by the State Government, it is created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be affected by restricting in the State Public Enterprises. We are thus of the view that contribution made to the said fund is solely for the purpose of the welfare and benefit of the employees. The Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited 274 ITR 465 has observed that it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in course of business. The expenditure can be incurred voluntarily and without necessity. Any contribution made by the assessee to a public welfare fund which is connected or related with his business is an allowable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
