2003 (10) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imposes the condition of payment before the due date only in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, (ii) the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 32,900 being the contribution to group gratuity scheme made on January 18, 1991 ?" The assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on business as shipping agents. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was regarding disallowance under section 43B of the Income-tax Act in respect of the expenditure by way of premium payable under the group gratuity scheme to the Life Insurance Corporation. It was contended by the assessee that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in confirming the disallowa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Explanation to section 36(1)(va). However, the Tribunal felt that the claim for deduction of such contribution should be considered under section 43B de hors the second proviso. The Tribunal held that when the "due date" as defined in the Explanation applied only to the employees' contribution to be credited to the employees' account, it would not be correct to say that the employer's contribution also should be made before the same due date. The Tribunal therefore held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in imposing the condition that the payment should have been made before the due date as defined in the Explanation which was applicable only for the purpose of the employees' contribution coming under clause (va) of sub-se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtain cases. But in the case of payments relating to provident fund etc., stress has been laid on payment within the "due date". This court held, therefore, it cannot be said that payment made beyond the due date also qualifies for deduction, in view of the prescription in the main provision itself. Later, this decision was followed by another Division Bench of this court in I. T. A. No. 92 of 2000 (since reported in CIT v. G. T. N. Textiles Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 282 (Ker)). That was a case wherein the assessee was a company deriving income mainly from textile business. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 67,09,434 as against Rs. 61,36,906 disclosed in the return. The difference in the income assessed was on account of th....