TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing for the parties have agreed that all the grounds raised by the Revenue, including grounds no.2, 3 and 6, are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, there is an inadvertent mistake by the Tribunal in not disposing of grounds no.2, 3 and 6, which comes within the ambit of mistake apparent on the face of record as per section 254(2) of the Act, hence, requires rectification. Since, there is consensus between the parties that grounds which have not been decided earlier are also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case but which could not be decided inadvertently, we proceed to dispose of them in terms of earlier decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in both the appeals have not been dealt with by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeals. However, it is relevant to observe, in the appeal order itself, the Tribunal has recorded the submissions of the Departmental Authorities to the effect that all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeals are covered by the decisions of the Tribunal and Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case as well as in case of another Insurance Company viz., ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2013] 140 ITD 41 (Mum.). In fact, in course of hearing of the present applications also, learned Counsels appearing for the parties have agreed that all the grounds raised by the Revenue, including grounds no.2, 3 and 6, are covered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 and also the decision of the bench in ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: 2.5.1 So, we would like to decide the issue of computing surplus / deficit disclosed by the actuarial valuation as per rule 2 of the First Schedule. As per the assessee, surplus / deficit had to be calculated in Form nI of the fourth schedule to the Insurance Act, 1938, prior to its amendment by the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002. We find that similar issue had arisen in the case IPLIC (supra). Deciding the matter Mumbai Bench of the Tribunals has dealt the issue as under: 27. Respectfully following the above principles and examining the provisions of IT Act, we are of the opinion that the 'actuari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments shall be added or deducted, as the case may be, if such gain or loss is not credited or debited to the Profit Loss A/c; (c) such amount carried over to a reserve for unexpired risks as may be prescribed in this behalf shall be allowed as a deduction '. (emphasis supplied) This indicates that the legislature consciously omitted incorporating the provisions of IRDA or the Regulations made there under in Rule 2 which still refers to the Insurance Act 1938 only. 28. Further, we also notice that the Insurance Act itself was amended along with the introduction of IRDA Act 1999. Along with the said IRDA Act, there are various amendments proposed in the Insurance Act in tune with IRDA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough are applicable to assessee since it has commenced business after the commencement of the IRDA Act, 1999, for the purpose of Rule-2, the actuarial valuation has to be done in accordance with the Regulations contained in erstwhile Fourth schedule Part-I and Part-II. This is what assessee is contending and merging the accounts of Policy-holders' and Share-holders' account and arriving at the actuarial deficit, without taking into consideration the transfer of funds from the Share-holders' account to Policy-holders' account. Respectfully, following the same we hold that the actuarial valuation has to be done in accordance with the Regulations contained in erstwhile Fourth schedule Part-I and Part-11. Grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
