SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(All) 58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Verma and M. Katju, JJ.
KUMSON MOTOR OWNERS UNION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondents
Income-tax Reference 159 Of 1985
Decided On : 01/29/1992

Provision for payment of gratuity to employees is not allowable as a deduction unless the conditions specified in Clause (b) of Section 40a (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are fulfilled.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 40a (7) - Deduction for gratuity - Conditions - Provision for payment of gratuity to employees - Not allowable as deduction unless conditions in Clause (b) of Section 40a (7) are fulfilled - Provision made by assessee for payment of gratuity in approved gratuity fund - Fund approved by Commissioner only with effect from May 24, 1978 - Provision for payment of gratuity to employees made by making deposits in banks and not in any approved gratuity fund during relevant years - Assessee's claim for deduction not covered by Clause (b) of Section 40a (7) - Rightly disallowed by Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a company limited by guarantee, claimed deduction for gratuity paid to its employees. The Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal disallowed the claim, holding that the conditions specified in Clause (b) of Section 40a (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not fulfilled.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the assessee's claim for deduction was rightly disallowed by the Tribunal as the provision for payment of gratuity was not made in an approved gratuity fund as required under Clause (b) of Section 40a (7). The court also noted that the gratuity fund was approved by the Commissioner only with effect from May 24, 1978, and the provision for payment of gratuity was made by making deposits in banks and not in any approved gratuity fund during the relevant years.

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim for deduction for gratuity is allowable under Section 40a (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 40a (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and held that deduction for gratuity is not allowable unless the conditions specified in Clause (b) of the section are fulfilled. The court also held that the expression "provision made by the assessee" in Section 40a (7) should be interpreted in its ordinary sense and not in any artificial sense.

Final Decision: The court answered both the questions referred to it in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue was also awarded costs of Rs. 250.

A. N. VERMA, J.

( 1 ) AT the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax appellate Tribunal for our opinion. " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the claim of the assessee is not allowable in the years under consideration by virtue of the provisions of Section 40a (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the case of the assessee-company is not covered by the provisions of Section 40a (7) (b) (i) of the Act?" 2. The assessee is a company limited by guarantee and had adopted the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee-company had debited certain amounts under the head " Gratuity " in the income and expenditure account. The auditors in their footnote to their balance-sheet for both the years have stated as under :

" Gratuity.--No provision exists for the payment of gratuity to the employees of the company under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The accrued liability according to actuarial valuation amounted to Rs. 2,72,436 as on March 31, 1977, for which no provision has been made in the accounts. During the year under report, the management has, however, deposited a sum of Rs. 59,633. 51 in the scheduled bank on account of part payment of gratuity to the employees. The accounts in various banks stand in the joint names of the company and the individual employee. In our opinion, this amount should have been shown in the balance-sheet instead of the profit and loss account because the amount has not been transferred to the trustees of the employees gratuity trust fund which has not been executed so far. "

( 3 ) THE Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to show cause why the claim for deduction on account of gratuity should not be disallowed. After hearing the assessee and considering the evidence, the Income-tax Officer held that the claim for deduction was hit by Section 40a (7) of the Income-tax Act. It was pointed out by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had moved the application for recognition of the gratuity fund with effect from May 24, 1978. That being so, the claim for gratuity made in the assessment year 1977-78 could not be allowed as the gratuity fund was not recognized by the Income-tax Officer, Lucknow, for the period under consideration. For the same reasons the claim of gratuity could not be allowed for the assessment year 1978-79 as well.

( 4 ) ON appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also took the same view and negatived the assessees claim. On a further appeal before the Tribunal, it was urged on behalf of the assessee that the gratuity amount having been deposited by it in the fund of the employee in respective banks the same should have been allowed. For the Department, on the other hand, it was contended that gratuity was not deductible unless the deposit fulfils the conditions laid down in Clause (b) of Section 40a (7 ). Accepting the Departments contention, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that a claim of gratuity could be allowed only if the amount was paid by the assessee by way of contribution to an approved gratuity fund for the exclusive benefit of employees under an irrevocable trust. The Tribunal noted the fact that the gratuity fund was approved by the commissioner of Income-tax only with effect from May 24, 1978.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions. We begin with Section 40a (1) of the Income-tax Act which provides :

"40a. (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act relating to the computation of income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . "

Clauses





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top