Karnataka High Court
Balanoor Tea And Rubber Co. Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 14 March, 1984
Equivalent citations: (1984)43CTR(KAR)94, [1984]148ITR736(KAR), [1984]148ITR736(KARN)
JUDGMENT Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. This revision under s. 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the order of the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. made under s. 35 of the Act.
2. The petitioner-company is deriving agricultural income from a tea estate and also from two coffee estates. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the company claimed deduction in respect of the provision made for gratuity payable to its employees. The sum so claimed was Rs. 83,257.15 on the estimated liability. The assessing officer allowed the claim under s. 5(k) of the Act following the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company's case [1969] 73 ITR 53; [1969] 39 Comp Cas 410. But, the Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction conferred under s. 35 of the Act, revised that portion of the assessment by holding that s. 5(k) of the Act is not at all relevant for the purpose of allowing gratuity liability and that r. 5(d) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Rules, framed under s. 63 of the Act, is the only rule relevant governing the question. He also held that under r. 5(d), the gratuity claimed cannot be allowed since it was only a provision made and not an actual payment.
3. We do not think that the view taken by the Commissioner could be justified. Section 5(k) of the Act is analogous to s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and r. 5(d) is similar to s. 36(1)(v) of the said Act. The scope of these provisions was considered by this court in Addl. CIT v. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation [1980] 125 ITR 136 and the accrued liability towards the payment of provident fund was allowed as a permissible deduction. Although the present case is concerned with the provision made towards gratuity, it makes no difference on principle and the ratio of the said decision, in our opinion, is equally applicable, since there is no dispute about the compliance of the requirements of s. 5(k).
4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the Commissioner is set aside and the assessment order is restored.
5. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.