TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n made to Gratuity Fund of Rs. 19,52,975/-. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by disallowing Rs. 13,29,889/- out of prior period expenses. 4. (i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 2,99,104/- made for depositing the employee's contribution to ESI & PF beyond the prescribed time limit provided in the respective Acts. (ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that employees contribution to ESI & PF are governed by the provision of section 43B and not by section 36(l)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of I.T. Act." 2. The assessee company is a State Government undertaking. It derived income from the activities of construction of roads, bridges and construction projects. The assessee company filed return on 29/09/2008 showing NIL income. The first ground of revenue's appeal is against deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made to contribution to State Renewal Fund. The ld Assessing Officer observed that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under:- "I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made. It is seen that the similar disallowance was made in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 wherein the matter when up to the ITAT Jaipur Bench. The Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 233/JP/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 and ITA No. 919/JP/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 has allowed the claim of assessee. Respectfully following the same, the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of contribution to State Renewal Fund is deleted." 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that this issue is covered in assessee's own case decision for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 16/07/2010 in ITA No. 919/JP/2009, for A.Y. 2006-07 order dated 26/02/2010 in ITA No. 754/JP/2009. Therefore, he prayed to confirm the order of the ld CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material availabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end the report to the CIT. A deed for variation was also submitted to the CIT on 27/5/1998 when there was a variation in the gratuity scheme. Thus, only because assessee do not have a formal letter of approval of this fund from the CIT when it has discharged its obligation to get it approved, he cannot be made to suffer on inaction on the part of the CIT to make necessary enquiry to ascertain the fact.. He further submitted that this issue is covered in assessee's own case decision for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 16/07/2010 in ITA No. 919/JP/2009, for A.Y. 2006-07 order dated 26/02/2010 in ITA No. 754/JP/2009. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 327 and Jaisalmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2013) 158 TTJ 0001. Therefore, he prayed to confirm the order of the ld CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The issue is already considered by the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, which is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. The case law cited by the AR also supporting the assessee's case, therefore, we upho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay get approved in subsequent years and accordingly entered in the books f accounts in that year. There is no doubt regarding the genuineness of the expenditure. As per the regular system of accounting all expenses are accounted after getting approval from concern authorities. Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in various cases of State Government Undertaking i.e. RIICO, RSEB, RSMDC, RBCC is consistently taking a view to allow such expenditure in the year when the expenses are finally sanctioned and approved. The nature of the assessee's expenditure is same. Following the decision of the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the various Government organization, the same is allowed and accordingly disallowance of Rs. 13,29,889/- made by the AO is deleted. So far as the alternative grounds of allowing the prior period expenditure in earlier year or excluding the prior period income is concerned, the same is dismissed as I have already allowed the claim of prior period expenses." 12. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by ITAT ....