TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y following the case of Suri Sons also needs to be decided as per the Tribunal order dated 31st August, 2015. 4. The learned DR, however, relied upon the order of authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the only issue to be decided by us is regarding the allowability of Premium of Keyman Insurance Policy. We further find that this case was earlier decided by Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 13.05.2014 in favour of Revenue which was however recalled vide order dated 29.02.2016. We further find that learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of assessee by following his order in the case of Suri Sons which itself has been decided by the Tribunal in ITA 37(Asr)/2010 vide its order dated 31.08.2015 in favour of assessee. The relevant findings of the Tribunal as contained in the case of M/s Suri Sons are reproduced below. "8. Let us now come back to the core issue before us. The short question that we have to really adjudicate is as to whether the premium of Rs. 1,49,99,922 paid on the keyman insurance policies can be allowed on the facts of this case. As to what constitutes 'keyman insurance policy', ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese are not insurance policy as such but are mainly for capital appreciation under the investment scheme and secondly, the assessee has not received the maturity sum but it has been assigned to the partners, therefore, the assessee cannot be given deduction for any premium paid. Insofar as the first objection of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is concerned, we declined to agree with this conclusion, because once the assessee has bought a policy under a life insurance scheme, then whether the insurance company is making investment in mutual funds for capital appreciation or under any other investment scheme, will not make any material difference. (Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us) 12. We are in considered agreement with the views so expressed by our distinguished colleagues. As long as a policy is an insurance policy, whether it involves a capital appreciation or is under any other investment scheme, it meets the tests laid down under section 10(10D). 13. The requirement of pure insurance policy is something which is not laid down by the statute. Yet, it is this which has been inferred by the authorities below. 14. Even if such an inference is desirable, as l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mind to be." Even in the case of CIT vs. National Taj Traders (supra), relied upon by the assessee, Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have referred to, with approval, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes' observation that "A case not provided for in a statute is not to be dealt with merely because there seems no good reason why it should have been omitted, and that the omission appears in consequence to have been unintentional". Their Lordships then observed that "In other words, under the first principle, a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except when reason for it is found to be in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute". 15. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the IRDA guidelines, no matter how relevant as these guidelines may be, have no role to play in the interpretation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was connected in any manner whatsoever with the business of the assessee. These conditions are clearly satisfied on the facts of the case before us. 16. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the authorities below on the circulars issued by the IRDA. It may, therefore, be appropriate to briefly deal with the IRDA and the impact of the circulars issued by the IRDA. IRDA, i.e. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, is set up under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Act 1999. Section 14 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Act, 1999, describes the duties, powers and functions of the IRDA as follows: 14. DUTIES, POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other law for the time being in force, the Authority shall have the duty to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance business and re-insurance business. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the powers and functions of the Authority shall include, - (a) issue to the applicant a certificate of registration, renew, modify, withdraw, suspend or cancel such registration; (b) protection of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conduct of the policy holders. As in Section 14(2)(b), if at all it has anything to do with the policyholders, it is protection of interest of the policyholders. It is in this background that we have to see the circulars issued by the IRDA. In the circular dated 27th April, 2005, the IRDA states as follows: The Authority is aware that some of the aberrations have taken place in the month of March 2005 in the matter of sale of keyman insurance. We shall conduct a detailed examination of the policies marketed in March 2005 and shall come up with detailed guidelines on the sale of keyman insurance at the appropriate time. In the meantime, it has been decided that only term insurance policy will henceforth be issued as 'keyman insurance cover'. Your company is requested to ensure that your company follows this circular till fresh guidelines are issued. 18. A plain look at the above circular shows that it deals with aberrations in sale of keyman insurance policies and it is was a direction to the insurance companies that effect 27th April 2005 only term insurance policies should be issued as keyman insurance cover. That is between the regulatory authority and the insurance c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he benefit of an expenditure cannot be, by any stretch of logic, relevant to determine its commercial expediency, and, in any case. Such a benefit of hindsight cannot be available at the point of time when business decisions are made; more often than not, these are the tools of post mortem of events, rather than inputs for the decision making. As for the other issues raised by the Assessing Officer as such, we may refer to the following observations made, in this context, by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajan Nanda etc. [(2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del)]: 25. After giving our due and thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties of both sides, we feel that the assessee has been able to make out a case in its favour and order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. We are persuaded by the following reasons in support of this view of ours: (i) The Department has itself allowed the expenditure incurred on the premium paid for keyman insurance policies in previous years as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. Right from 1991-92 upto 1993-94 and thereafter even in respect of Assessment Year 1997-98, the expenditure was allowed. Though ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n insurance policy is allowable as business expenditure. In the present case, on the question whether the premium which was paid by the firm could have been allowed as business expenditure, there is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the firm had not taken insurance for the personal benefit of the partner, but for the benefit of the firm, in order to protect itself against the set back that may be caused on account of the death of a partner. The object and purpose of a Keyman insurance policy is to protect the business against a financial set back which may occur, as a result of a premature death, to the business or professional organization. There is no rational basis to confine the allowability of the expenditure incurred on the premium paid towards such a policy only to a situation where the policy is in respect of the life of an employee. A Keyman insurance policy is obtained on the life of a partner to safeguard the firm against a disruption of the business that may result due to the premature death of a partner. Therefore, the expenditure which is laid out for the payment of premium on such a policy is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business." (iv)....