Cit v. State Bank Of Travancore [2015] 378 Itr 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938 ITA.No. 50 of 2015 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 110/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-06-2014 ---------- APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/R3 RESPONDENT/REVENUE:-------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRIVANDRUM BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:----------------------------------------------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695008. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMTG.MINI(1748) R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ I. T. A. No.50 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2[nd ]day of March, 2017 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. aRevenue has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench inI.T.A. No.110/Coch/2014 concerning the assessment year2007-08. The only issue on which this appeal is filed is withrespect to the disallowance of contribution to RetiredEmployees Medical Benefit scheme by invoking Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment order to theextent the contribution was disallowed was set aside by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. In the appeal filed by the revenue, the Tribunal placed reliance on its own order in the case of the assesseefor the Assessment Year 2002-03 in I.T.A.861 of 2005 and I. T. A. No.50 of 2015 accordingly, the order of the Commissioner was sustained.It is in this background, the revenue has filed this appealand the question of law framed for the consideration of thisCourt is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the contribution of the assessee towards the RetiredEmployees Benefit Scheme is an allowable deduction in viewof the provisions contained in Section 40A(9) of the IncomeTax Act.It is in this background, the revenue has filed this appealand the question of law framed for the consideration of thisCourt is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the contribution of the assessee towards the RetiredEmployees Benefit Scheme is an allowable deduction in viewof the provisions contained in Section 40A(9) of the IncomeTax Act. 3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for therevenue and the learned counsel appearing for therespondent assessee.revenue and the learned counsel appearing for therespondent assessee. 4. On hearing the rival submissions made, we find that the very same question of law was raised by the revenuebefore this Court in the case of the assessee itself, in thecontext of the assessment year 2006-07. In the judgment inbefore this Court in the case of the assessee itself, in thecontext of the assessment year 2006-07. In the judgment in CIT v. State Bank of Travancore [2015] 378 ITR 219 (Ker), this Court has answered the question of law thus: “Section 40A which starts with the non I. T. A. No.50 of 2015 3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for therevenue and the learned counsel appearing for therespondent assessee.revenue and the learned counsel appearing for therespondent assessee. 4. On hearing the rival submissions made, we find that the very same question of law was raised by the revenuebefore this Court in the case of the assessee itself, in thecontext of the assessment year 2006-07. In the judgment inbefore this Court in the case of the assessee itself, in thecontext of the assessment year 2006-07. In the judgment in CIT v. State Bank of Travancore [2015] 378 ITR 219 (Ker), this Court has answered the question of law thus: “Section 40A which starts with the non I. T. A. No.50 of 2015 obstante clause. Prior to its amendment by theFinance Act, 2011, as per sub-section (9)introduced by the Finance Act, 1984, with effectfrom April 1, 1980, deduction of only paymentsfor the purposes and the extent provided waspermitted. The assessee does not have a casethat the contribution made by it to the pensionfund is payment which is permitted under section36. If that be so, in view of section 40A(9), thepayment made by the assessee could not havebeen allowed to be deducted and its disallowanceby the Assessing Officer is perfectly in line withthe statutory provisions. We may also add thatsince sub-section (9) was added to section 40A bythe Finance Act, 1984, the judgment of theMadras High Court in T. Stanes and Co. Ltd.(supra) rendered in the context of the assessmentyears 1959-60 to 1964-65 has no relevance in sofar as the case of the assessee is concerned.” 5. Despite the above binding judgment, the learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of P.Balakrishnan v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals (Ker) [243] ITR 284, this Court has already considered the verysame issue and that following the aforesaid judgment, theassessee's own case was decided in their favour, by theTribunal for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. Hehas also made detailed reference to the order of the I. T. A. No.50 of 2015 Tribunal in I.T.A.861 of 2005 concerning the assessmentyear 2002-03. 6. However, having regard to the binding precedent inthe case of the assessee itself in CIT v. State Bank ofTravancore (supra), we are not inclined to place relianceon the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for theassessee or the order of the Tribunal relied on by him. In such circumstances, answering the question of lawraised in this appeal in favour of the revenue, this appeal isdisposed of. Sd/- JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC Sd/- JUDGE K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE