2025 (3) TMI 1162 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows deduction for claim payout provisions based on actuarial reports, overturns adhoc basis finding

ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal regarding provision for claim payout deduction. The tribunal overturned CIT(A)'s finding that provisions were ... Allowability of Provision for Claim Pay Out created - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had allowed deduction for actual Claim Pay Out. On perusal of the above details, it can be seen that the Provision for Claim Payout created for AY 2019-2020 was less than the actual Claim Pay Out. Further, on an overall basis (i.e. from A.Y. 2016-2017 till A.Y. 2022-2023), the aggregate difference between the Provisions for Claims Pay Out and actual Claim Payout was only 2.21% only. Further, the Assessee has been granted exemption from income tax u/s 10(46B) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2023. We overturn the finding returned by the CIT(A) that the Provision for Claim Pay Out has been created on adhoc basis. In our view, the Assessee has created provisions for the liability to make payment towards Claim Pay Out on the basis of actuarial report furnished by an independent actuary after application of mind to the attendant facts and circumstances. The Provision for Claims Pay Out so created is an ascertained liability keeping in view the provisions of the Trust Deed, the Scheme and the applicable agreement. Therefore the order passed by the AO and the CIT(A) in relation to Provision for Claim for Pay Out is set aside and the AO is directed to grant deduction for Provisions for Claim Pay Out created during the relevant previous year. Our above view draws strength form the following decision of Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro and Small Enterprises [2023 (11) TMI 1107 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro and Small Enterprises [2024 (12) TMI 1477 - ITAT MUMBAI] Appeal of assessee allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and bad in law.Whether the appellate order passed under Section 250 of the Act violated principles of natural justice.Whether the disallowance of the provision for claim payout amounting to Rs. 682,09,65,697/- was justified.Whether the provision for claim payout created during the relevant previous year was an allowable deduction in the hands of the Assessee.Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing certain deductions and deletions from the assessed income.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Validity of the Assessment and Appellate OrdersRelevant legal framework and precedents: The assessment order was challenged under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act, while the appellate order was challenged under Section 250 of the Act. The principles of natural justice were also invoked.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not find merit in the arguments regarding the invalidity of the assessment order or the violation of natural justice in the appellate order, as these grounds were rendered infructuous by the resolution of the substantive issue regarding the provision for claim payout.Conclusions: The grounds challenging the validity of the orders were dismissed as not pressed.Issue: Disallowance of Provision for Claim PayoutRelevant legal framework and precedents: The provision for claim payout was evaluated under accrual accounting principles, considering the Trust Deed and the Scheme guidelines. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions in similar cases, such as Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro and Small Enterprises v. ITO.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the provision for claim payout was based on an actuarial valuation report and was not ad-hoc. The provision was deemed an ascertained liability rather than a contingent one, as it was based on a systematic evaluation of expected defaults and liabilities.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that similar provisions had been accepted in other assessment years and for other trusts managed by the same trustee. The actual claim payouts closely matched the provisions, further supporting their validity.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency, noting that the Revenue had accepted similar provisions in other cases. The Tribunal also emphasized the systematic approach used in the actuarial valuation.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that the provision was contingent was rejected. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s allowance of deductions on a payment basis was inconsistent with the accrual accounting method followed by the Assessee.Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the deduction for the provision for claim payout, overturning the CIT(A)'s finding that it was ad-hoc.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSVerbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal stated, 'The moment Guarantee Fee is received the corresponding liability to pay the guarantee amount in case of a Claim Pay Out as per the terms of the Scheme and the applicable agreement gets triggered.'Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that provisions based on systematic actuarial evaluations are allowable deductions and should not be treated as contingent liabilities.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal regarding the provision for claim payout and dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deductions allowed by the CIT(A).