The order of the Bench was delivered by
1. This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda dated February 19, 2013, for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
"(1A) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Bathinda has erred in law and facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 29,73,044 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir. II (i.e., Rs. 22,03,792 on account of disallowance of gratuity paid of employees for non common cadre promoted to common cadre and ceased to be employees of our bank (+) Rs. 7,69,252 paid for common cadre staff of Punjab State Co-op. Bank who worked with our bank).
(1B) That upholding the disallowance of gratuity paid of employees is totally unjustified without considering facts, evidence and circumstances and was based on wrong misinterpretation of section 40A(7)(a) and 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act and without considering the provisions of sections 36(1)(v) and 37 of the Income-tax Act when the same became payable during the year on termination of services of employees from appellant-society and even it was remitted to new entity, i.e., Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh as per service rules and consent of such employees and should have been taken as paid as per section 43(2) of the Income-tax Act.
2. That upholding addition of Rs. 1,61,572 made on account of allegation of less interest charged by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Cir.II, Bhatinda is also not justified and in accordance with law and also resulted double taxation of same income when the assessee has duly shown what was charged and recoverable during the year and whatever difference found recoverable and traced later on during audit has duly been shown in income of ensuing year as per same practice followed by the assessee-society from year to year. So addition made is also liable for deletion.
3. That the appeal is with in the time and copy of order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhatinda along with receipt of Rs. 10,000 deposited as appeal fee are also enclosed.
4. That the appellant reserve the right to make any addition in grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed of."
2. The brief facts in ground No. 1 are that the assessee had made provision of gratuity of Rs. 22,03,792 for employees who are promoted during the year and became employees of Punjab State Co-op. Bank, Chandigarh and a further provision of Rs. 7,69,252 was made in respect of employees of Punjab State Co-op Bank but were working with the assessee. These provisions were examined by him with reference to the provisions of section 40A(7)(b) of the Act and it was held by him that the aforesaid provision were not towards approved gratuity or towards actual payment of gratuity that had become payable in the previous year and was thus not allowable except for the provision of Rs. 20,930 because the same was payable to one Shri Ravinder Kumar, peon on his death. He accordingly disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 29,73,044. In this regard, the Assessing Officer also relied upon Circular No. 169 dated June 23, 1975 and on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bitoni Lamps Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 421/[1989] 45 Taxman 397/178 ITR 421 in which the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585/23 Taxman 37 was followed.
3. Learned counsel for the assessee, Sudhir Sehgal, argued that the Fazilka Central Co-operative Bank with its head office at Abohar is a co-operative society separate legal entity doing banking business with its PAN : AAABT2344Q. The service rules of employees are being governed by Punjab State Co-operative Financial Institution Service Rules, 1958. The apex body, i.e., Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Chandigarh is also a separate legal entity having its PAN : AAAAP0253B and its service rules are being governed by the Punjab State Co-op. Financial Institutions Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1970-71. The management/employees consist of following categories to whom provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable as per the abovesaid service rules Table
| Common cadre employee |
Category/Designation of employee |
1 |
Assistant General Manager |
2 |
Senior Manager |
3 |
Manager |
Non-common cadre |
|
4 |
Assistant Manager |
5 |
Accountant |
6 |
Clerk |
7 |
Daftri |
8 |
Driver |
9 |
Peon-cum-chowkidar |
10 |
Sweeper |
4. The officials at S. Nos. 1 to 3 (called common cadre employees) are the Employees of Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, and their services are being governed under the Punjab State Co-operative Financing Institution Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1970-71. These employees are positioned either at Punjab State Co-operative Bank Chandigarh or its Divisional Officers in the State of Punjab or at different District Central Coop. Banks then salary and cost of payment of gratuity admissible to these employees for the period of their stay at that District Central Co-op. Banks are being met and borne by these District Central Co-op. Bank. Gratuity due and payable during the period of stay with such District Central Co-op Banks are also remitted and paid to apex body, i.e., the Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh under whom they are employed.
5. The officials at S. Nos. 1 to 3 are the employees (called non common cadre) of The Fazilka Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Abohar and their services are being governed by Punjab State Co-op. Financing Institution Service Rules, 1958 and cost of salaries and other retirement benefits including gratuity are being met and borne by the bank itself. When these employees from S. Nos. 4 to 10 are promoted in S. Nos. 1 to 3 to common cadre, then these employees ceased to be employees of the bank and are no more employees of bank with effect from such cessation and all the gratuity dues and other retirement benefits are immediately remitted and paid to apex body, i.e., Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh by our banker as per service rules.
| (a) |
|
Copies of PAN cards of both the banks, i.e., Fazilka Central Cop. Bank Abohar and Punjab State Co-op. Bank, Chandigarh are also enclosed showing separate legal entity and separately assessed to income-tax. |
(b) |
|
Copy of "Common Cadre" Service Rules 1970-71 are also enclosed. |
(c) |
|
Copies of Circular No. Misc.-120/6086 dated July 27, 2001 and Circular No. 637 dated February 22, 2003 regarding remittance of gratuity payable to employees of common cadre as per their service rules are enclosed. |
6. As regards disallowance of payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 29,73,044 it was stated that the additions made were totally unjustified and uncalled for. The gratuity amount paid was added on wrong interpretation and wrong inference drawn from the language of section 40A(7)(a) of the Income-tax Act without considering section 40A(7)(b) of the Act which is not according to law and also misunderstood the facts regarding actual remittance of gratuity.
7. It was further stated that during the relevant assessment year 2007-08, some staff members who were promoted vide order No. 4737 dated August 29, 2006 of the Commissioner Co-operative Societies Punjab (From S. Nos. 52 to 60 of promotion order) who were earlier the employees of the bank ceased to be employees of our bank with effect from August 30, 2006 and were inducted in Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. Such employees also gave their consent regarding joining with other employer i.e., Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh and demanded gratuity due to them on their such cessation to employment with Fazilka Central Co-operative Bank, Abohar may kindly be remitted to our new employer, i.e., Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. Such gratuity payment due to them amounting to Rs. 22,03,792 on leaving the job from our bank was also demanded by Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Chandigarh vide letter No.10903 dated December 29, 2006 as per service rules as details given above. As such the assessee-bank was required to pay the gratuity due to them under the service rules and cannot withhold such dues and same was remitted and paid to the new employer as per calculations and details and same are detailed as under :
| Amount (Rs.) |
Particulars |
22,03,792 |
Remitted and paid vide demand draft No. 849487 dated March 31, 2007 to Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. |
8. Similarly the assessee bank was also required to pay the salary as well as gratuity liability of such employees as per service rules who worked with the assessee-bank but were actually employees of the apex bank i.e., Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the period of their stay and working in the bank. And the same was also remitted to them as per calculations and details and the same are as under :
| Amount (Rs.) |
Particulars |
7,69,252 |
Remitted and paid vide demand draft No. 849482 dated March 31, 2007 to Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. |
9. Learned counsel further stated that in fact these gratuity payments have actually became payable, incurred, paid and remitted. No such provision has been made and outstanding as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Provision made of gratuity payable of own employees outstanding in the balance-sheet has duly been added by the assessee in his return of income duly confirmed by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order.
10. Learned counsel further made a reference to section 40A(7)(a) and 40A(7)(b), which are reproduced as under :
"40A(7)(a) Subject to the provisions of clause (b), no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any provision (whether called as such or by any other name) made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity to his employees on their retirement or on termination of their employment for any reason.
40A(7)(b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply in relation to any provision made by the assessee for the purpose of payment of a sum by way of any contribution towards as approved gratuity fund, or for the purpose of payment of any gratuity, that has become payable during the previous year."
11. So while going through section 40A(7)(b), it is quite clear that these gratuity payments are allowable as these are actually paid to new entity for our employees on their leaving the job of our bank as they ceased to employees of our bank and became the employees the new entity which they have joined and paid at their request and consent. The Assessing Officer considered only section 40A(7)(a) and ignored to consider second limb of section 40A(7)(b) of the Act and not taking proper and factual interpretation. The Assessing Officer considered old section 40A(7)(a) and 40A(7)(b) with Explanation which was substituted by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from April 1, 2000, with calculation and explanation. As such the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable under amended section and not proper.
12. Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to section 43(2) of the Act which defines term "paid" consideration according to which gratuity actually paid or incurred is allowable. Section 43(2) of the Income-tax Act, defines as under :
"Paid" means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'".
13 Learned counsel further made a reference to section 37 about the expenditure which also includes gratuity and which is as under :
"Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure of personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession'"
14. So it is an actually paid gratuity and transferred to other new business entity.
15. So while going through the above section it is quite clear that gratuity paid or transferred to other new entity is definitely an allowable deduction if section 40A(7)(a) and (b) are read with section 43(2) and section 43B(b) and section 37 of the Act.
16. Learned counsel further stated that the cases referred to by the Assessing Officer for addition for remittance of gratuity to new business entities are not applicable in this case and the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. (supra) are under old section and regarding provision made by the assessee and does not prohibit actual payments to new business entity when actually they cease to be employees of the assessee-bank and left services of the bank. As regards the judgment relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the case of CIT v. Bitoni Lamps Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 396/114 Taxman 336, the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has also misinterpreted and misapplied in this case. However, gratuity is admissible according to clause (b) of section. In the said decision, the hon'ble High Court has held as under (headnote) :
"A perusal of section 40A(7) of the Act shows that according to clause (a) no deduction in respect of any provision for payment of gratuity is admissible. Clause (b) however, provides for two exceptions to the general rule contained in clause (a). According to clause (b) the provision for gratuity can be allowed (i) if it had been made for payment by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund or (ii) if the provision is for the purpose of payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the previous year".
17. However, gratuity is admissible according to clause (b) as it has become due, incurred, paid and remitted is allowable as business expenditure. In our case the gratuity of employees ceasing to be our employees have been deposited and transferred to their accounts to the new business entity where they have joined with their consent and request and so it is an allowable deduction.
18. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions :
| (i) |
|
W.T. Suren and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 643/97 Taxman 126 (SC) ; |
(ii) |
|
J.R. Diamonds Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 42 (Mum.) ; |
(iii) |
|
CIT v. Sarada Binding Works [1985] 152 ITR 520 (Mad) ; |
(iv) |
|
CIT v. Salem Magnesite (P.) Ltd. [1991] 189 ITR 154/54 Taxman 123 (Bom) ; |
(v) |
|
Bitoni Lamps Ltd.(supra); and the decisions of various other courts of law which are part of the paper book. All the paper judgments are placed on records to support the arguments made hereinabove. |
19. The learned Departmental representative on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both authorities below.
20. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. For the better appreciation and to decide the present issue, for the sake of convenience, we reproduce section 40A(7) as under :
"Section 40A(7)(a) Subject to the provisions of clause (b), no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any provision (whether called as such or by any other name) made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity to his employees on their retirement or on termination of their employment for any reason.
(b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply in relation to any provision made by the assessee for the purpose of payment of a sum by way of any contribution towards an approved gratuity fund, or for the purpose of payment of any gratuity, that has become payable during the previous year.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where any provision made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity to his employees on their retirement or termination of their employment for any reason has been allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee for any assessment year, any sum paid out of such provision by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund or by way of gratuity to any employee shall not be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the sum is so paid."
21. From the reading of the section 40A(7), it is evident that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any provision made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity to his employees on their retirement or on termination of their employment for any reasons. While reading clause (b), it is mentioned that nothing in clause (a) shall apply in relation to any provision made by the assessee for the purpose of payment or contribution towards approved gratuity fund or for the purpose of payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the previous year. From the reading of section 40A(7)(b), it is quite clear that provisions made for the gratuity have not to be allowed as deduction. Whereas in the present case, no such provision has been made. Whatever provision has been made with regard to certain employees that has already been added in the computation of income by the assessee and which is not a matter of dispute. The dispute is with regard to the amount of Rs. 22,03,792 on account of gratuity paid for non common cadre employees promoted to common cadre ceased to be employees of the assessee bank and Rs. 7,69,252 on account of gratuity paid for common cadre staff of the bank totalling to Rs. 29,73,044. The amount of Rs. 22,03,792 was remitted and paid vide demand draft No.849487 dated March 31, 2007 to Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh and Rs. 7,69,252 also remitted and paid vide demand draft No.849882 dated March 31, 2007 to the same bank as mentioned hereinabove. These gratuity payment became actually payable during the year ending March 31, 2007 which were paid and remitted as mentioned hereinabove and no provision has been made and nothing is outstanding as at March 31, 2007.
22. It is pertinent to mention that the employees themselves demanded the gratuity and the letters of demand are on record at paper book 26 to 34 where it has been mentioned by each employee that he ceased to be employee of the assessee-bank with effect from the date mentioned in the letter and therefore, the assessee-bank was requested that the amount of gratuity of the service rendered by that employee in the assessee-bank be paid to the Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh as per letter No.10983 dated December 29, 2006. The letter No. 10983 dated December 29, 2006, is a letter of the Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh on record, where it has been asked by that bank to remit the amount of gratuity and leave salary contribution of non-cadre period in respect of non common cadre employees who were promoted as managers in the common cadre available at paper book 25.
23. It is also pertinent to mention that the said employees ceased to be employees of the assessee-bank and therefore, the argument of the learned Departmental representative that the employees have not retired cannot be accepted. The assessee-bank and Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh are different persons having separate permanent account number cards and separate legal entity and separately assessed to the Income-tax Department. Moreover, the Punjab State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh vide letter dated July 27, 2001 has issued a letter to the manager of the Central Co-operative Banks of Punjab State to remit the said amount, which is available at paper book 15 and 16.
24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee had not made the provisions for the gratuity to his employees which became payable during the year on their retirement and has been paid during the impugned year and therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer on this account. Our views find support from the decision of Bitoni Lamps Ltd. (supra) where it has been held that :
"Payment of contribution to gratuity trust, deduction was claimed in respect of amount actually deposited in the fund which had become payable during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. No case made out by the Revenue that the gratuity in respect of which the said payment was made had not become payable during the relevant year. Grant of approval to the gratuity fund was not relevant as the deduction was not claimed on account of any provision-No disallowance could be made under section 40A(7)."
25. Also our views find support from the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of W.T. Suren and Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that :
"The amount of gratuity which was paid to R. Ltd. on behalf of the employees was not on account of transfer of the distribution unit of the assessee but on account of stopping of that business and the employees working in that unit becoming surplus resulting in termination of their services. Other business of the assessee, as held by the Tribunal continued. Payment of gratuity amount to R. Ltd. was not made by the assessee of its own but at the instance and on behalf of the employees whose services through terminated in the assessee-company were taken over by R. Ltd. with the promise of continuity of service in R. Ltd. As far as the assessee is concerned, it was bound to make payment of gratuity to the employees whose services were terminated and, in fact, the employees who did not join R. Ltd. were directly paid gratuity. The assessee was obliged to pay gratuity to those employees who had joined R.Ltd. Instead of those employees getting the gratuity amount directly, got that amount paid to R.Ltd. who put that amount in trust in a separate account for the exclusive use of the transferred employees and payable to them after their services in R.Ltd. terminated including the gratuity due on account of service rendered in R.Ltd. as per the scheme relating to gratuity of that company. Payment of amount of gratuity to R. Ltd. was made as per the scheme of the assessee and it was not an ex gratia or some isolated payment. It was never disputed and in fact, no question raised if the services of the employees of the assessee were not terminated and that being the position, the obligation of the assessee to make payment of gratuity to its employees was and obligation in praesenti. Payment of gratuity amount to R. Ltd. was with the consent of the employees transferred there. Thus, payment of gratuity awarded by the assessee to R. Ltd. in the circumstances of the case was an expenditure wholly laid or expended for the purpose of the business of the assessee and was allowable deduction. It cannot certainly be said that it was an expenditure incurred much ahead of time as the services of the employees with the assessee were terminated. The assessee had not wound up all of its affairs. Only a part of its business was closed and transferred to R. Ltd. In these circumstances, Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of gratuity amount was not on account of closing the business of the assessee but for the purpose of business of the assessee and, thus, entitled to deduction under clause (xv) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the 1922 Act corresponding to section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the payment of gratuity amount made to R.Ltd. as an allowable deduction."
26. Reliance is also placed in the case of Sarada Binding Works where it has been held that :
"Business expenditure-Gratuity-Transfer of business along with employees-Payment to transferee amount of gratuity liability in respect of employees-Is allowable business expenditure."
27. Reliance is also placed in the case of Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where it has been held that :
"Reference-Question of fact-Deduction of gratuity-Assessee making payment of gratuity amount to the State Government in accordance with the agreement between workers and the State Government-Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of amount paid by the assessee. Therefore, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's claim."
28. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and our findings hereinabove, we reverse the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee with respect to gratuity paid amounting to Rs. 22,03,792. Accordingly, grounds 1A and 1B of the assessee are allowed.
29. As regards ground 2, the brief facts are that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,61,572 for the reasons that the interest was less charged from the customers.
30. The action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
31. It was argued by learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sudhir Sehgal that this addition is also totally unjustified as the assessee has shown and accounted what it has charged from the customers and recoverable from them for this year on day-to-day basis and if any difference of interest recoverable is traced later on or pointed out by the auditors due to miscalculation and oversight that has been shown in ensuing year and the same practice and method is being followed by the assessee from year to year since the start of bank and being accepted by the Department also on continuity concept and evidence regarding the same is reproduced hereunder :
| Assessment year |
Year ending |
Discrepancies |
Particulars |
2004-05 |
31-3-2004 |
Net interest less charged by Rs. 3,24,872 |
Duly accepted by the Department |
2005-06 |
31-3-2005 |
Net interest less charged by Rs. 1,68,933 |
Duly accepted by the Department |
2006-07 |
31-3-2006 |
Net interest less charged by Rs. 4,13,915 |
Duly accepted by the Department |
2007-08 |
31-3-2007 |
Net interest less charged by Rs. 16,11,572 |
Addition made and under appeal. |
32. It is further submitted that if addition on account of miscalculation & oversight of interest in this year then it is also allowable in ensuing year and income of ensuing year is to be reduced and that would be unnecessary a complicated process as same income cannot be assessed in (2) assessment years. Even there is no tax effect as incidence of tax is same in assessment year 2007-08 and assessment year 2008-09.
33. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decisions of various courts of law :
| (i) |
|
CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC) ; |
(i) |
|
CIT v. Citibank N. A. [1994] 208 ITR 930/75 Taxman 433 (Bom) ; |
(ii) |
|
CIT v. Rajasthan Financial Corpn. (No. 1) [1998] 229 ITR 246/[1996] 88 Taxman 58 (Raj) ; |
(iii) |
|
CIT v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 410 (Punj. & Har.) ; and |
(iv) |
|
Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99/135 Taxman 586 (SC). |
34. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both authorities below.
35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As per report of the auditors, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has charged lesser interest of Rs. 5,71,139 and charged excess interest of Rs. 4,09,567 on loan and accordingly net interest charged is lesser by Rs. 1,61,572. It was explained before the authorities below by the assessee that this is a consistent practice being followed by the assessee since beginning that any interest extra charged or lesser charged has to be adjusted in the next year. The assessee has submitted the details of interest lesser charged or over charged which has been accepted by the Department in the preceding year and consistent practice is being followed in the impugned year as well. Even there is no tax effect as incidence of tax in the impugned year as well as in the following year and in the preceding year is the same. In the present facts and circumstances, the right to receive has accrued only in the following year and the same has been charged in the following year itself. Therefore, the said charge cannot be made during the impugned year. The reliance is placed in the case of A Gajapathy Naidu (supra) where it has been held :
"When an Income-tax Officer proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions namely : (i) what is the system of accountancy adopted by the assessee, and (ii) if it is the mercantile system, subject to the deeming provisions, when has the right to receive accrued ? If he comes to the conclusion that such a right accrued or arose to the assessee in a particular accounting year, he should include the said income in the assessment of the succeeding assessment year. No power is conferred on the Income-tax Officer under the Act to relate back an income that accrued or arose in a subsequent year to another earlier year, on the ground that income arose out of an earlier transaction. Nor is the question of reopening of accounts relevant in the matter of ascertaining when a particular income accrued or arose. The meaning of the work 'accrue' or 'arise' in section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 cannot be extended so as to take in amounts received in a later year though the receipt was not on the basis of a right accrued in the earlier year. Such amounts are in law received by the assessee only in the year which they are paid."
36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has been following consistent method of practice and right to accrue the income had arisen in the following year which has been charged in the following year which is not under dispute. Therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee. Hence, ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed.
37. Grounds Nos. 3 and 4 are general in nature, therefore, do not require any adjudication.
38. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 299 (Asr) 2013 is allowed.
The order pronounced in the open court on