Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi
Per Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata dated 28.03.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, Kolkata has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,42,193/- and Rs.46,33,577/- on account of contribution to the Superannuation Fund and the Gratuity Fund although the assessee could not furnish any evidence in respect of approval of such funds from the concerned Competent Authority?
./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 4 (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, Kolkata has erred in directing to allow deduction in respect of contribution towards Gratuity Fund and Superannuation Fund made in the F.Y. 2008-09 although application of the assessee-company for approval of the deed of variation was made on 27.01.2012 before ld. CIT, Kol-I, Kolkata, i.e. after the completion of the relevant F.Y.?
We have heard Shri R.S. Biswas, ld. CIT, D.R. and Ms. Akshata Mehta, ld. counsel for the assessee. The first appellate authority in his order at para 2.3 observed as follows:- “2.3. I have carefully considered the above observation of the assessing officer and also the submission of the Ld. AIR. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the Ld. AIR has explained that the gratuity fund of the appellant company is maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India. During F.Y. 2008-09, the appellant company incurred Rs.46,33,577/- on account of gratuity fund. The fund of the appellant company is in the name of "VAI India Pvt. Ltd." and not in its present name i.e. "Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd." Accordingly, the A.O. has held that the appellant did not have any gratuity fund of its own and disallowed the contribution of Rs.46,33,577/-. The Ld. A/R has further explained that as per the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the appellant company was merged with VAI India Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.01.2002 and its present name is M/s. "Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. 'Ltd." The appellant has filed a letter before the CIT on 27.01.2012 informing the above changes with necessary documents. The Ld. AIR has also furnished a copy of the letter No. CIT Kol-I/GF/SF/12- 13/7390 dated 18.02.2013 issued by the A.C.LT. Hqrs-1, Kolkata which is reproduced as under:-
"Sub: Approval of Deed of Variation of Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Employees Superannuation Fund & Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Employees Gratuity Fund.
Ref: Your letter dated 23.01.2013. Sir,
With reference to the captioned letter this to inform you that the matter is being considered and the approval of deed of variations are under process."
./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 4 The Ld. A/R has also explained that the necessary approvals for the Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Employees Superannuation Fund and Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Employees Gratuity Fund would be received shortly. In view of the above, the A.O. is directed to delete (i) the addition of Rs.23,42, 193 I - on account of contribution to superannuation fund and (ii) the addition of Rs.46,33,577/- on account of contribution to gratuity fund subject to the condition that the Deed of Variation of aforesaid Superannuation Fund and the Gratuity Fund of the appellant company are approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax at time of giving effect to this order. If the Commissioner of Income-tax does not approve the Deed of Variation of aforesaid Superannuation Fund and the Gratuity Fund, the additions of Rs.23,42,193/- and Rs.46,33,577/- on account of contributions to the Superannuation Fund and the Gratuity Fund respectively are to be treated as confirmed. For statistical purpose, these grounds of appeal are allowed”.
We do not find any infirmity in this order of the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and pass necessary consequential orders. The directions are specific. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 28, 2017.