JOLLY ICE AND COLD STORAGE,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45(3), NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the NFAC, Delhi DIN & order No. ITBA/ APL / S
/ 250/ 2025-26/ 1078145749 (1) dated 03.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
“the Act”).
2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
2
5150/Del/2025
Jolly Ice and Cold Storage
This assessee appeal raises the following substantive grounds :- 1 That the impugned order was contrary to the fact of case and law of natural justice. 2 The Assessing Officer and AddI/ JCIT (A)has erred in making the addition of Rs. 2,13,277/- in the declared return of income. 3 The Assessing Officer and AddI/ JCIT (A) has erred in non considering/acknowledging the payment of gratuity of Rs. 2,94,866/- 4 The Ld. AddI/ JCIT (A) has erred in allowing 81,589/- by netting of the provision of Rs. 2,13,277/- with that of actual payment of gratuity to employees of Rs. 2,94,866/- during the year. 5 It is prayed that the appellant may be allowed to add further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. Both the parties next invites the tribunal’s attention to the lower appellate discussion upholding the assessment findings disallowing the assessee’s section 40A(7) gratuity claim as under :-
The appellant had filed their return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 26.10.2017 declaring total
3
5150/Del/2025
Jolly Ice and Cold Storage income Rs. 18,01,990/-. The issue on this appeal pertains to the disallowance of payment of gratuity u/s 40A(7) of Income Tax Act amounting to Rs.
2,13,277/-. On perusal of the documents filed by the appellant, it is noted that the appellant had paid Rs. 2,94,866/- by way of payment of gratuity and had made provision of Rs. 2,13,277/- has been provided in the books of account. The appellant's submission revealed that they have claimed deduction of Rs 81,589/- in the ITR being a net amount of gratuity provision made and gratuity amount paid to employees. The ITR submitted by Appellant doesn't reveal any such amount in the ITR. Therefore, the appellant claim of disallowance of gratuity provision in the ITR cannot be supported with the proper evidence. Thus, petition filed by the appellant is rejected.
5. Suffice to say, it is abundantly clear that both the lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s impugned claim that the same nowhere emanates from his returns filed for the relevant previous year.
6. Faced with the situation, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to assessee’s returns indicating his impugned claim in column Nos. 29 and 33, as the case may be, including the differential amount of Rs. 81,589/- testing subject matter of adjudication. This amount admittedly
4
5150/Del/2025
Jolly Ice and Cold Storage represents the difference between
Rs.2,94,866/- and Rs.2,13,277/- i.e.
actual payment and corresponding provision
(supra), as noticed in the lower appellate discussion. This clinches factual position has gone un- rebutted from the Revenue side. This tribunal, therefore, accepts the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in very terms therefore. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/10/2025. Dated:13/10/2025
*NEHA, Sr. PS*