BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under S. 256 (2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 8,47,929 disallowed by the ITO on account of provisions for gratuity?"
(2.) THE reference relates to the asst. yr. 1971-72., for which the relevant period of account is the period ending on 31st March, 1971. In this case while making the assessment for the year in question, the ITO disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of the sum of Rs. 8,47,929 for liability towards gratuity on the basis of actuarial valuation. Thereafter the CIT (A) passed an order under S. 263 of the Act, by which he directed the ITO to redecide the issue in the light of his observations made in his order in respect of the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 8,47,622. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A) passed under section263, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal following the decision of this Court in the case of Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Ltd. (C.R.No.5552 (w) of 1975, dt. 27th Feb., 1976) set aside the order of the CIT vide its order in IT Appeal No. 604 (Cal.) of 1975-76, dt. 30th March, 1978. From the order in IT Appeal No.604 (Cal) of 1975-76, dt. 30th March, 1978. From the order of the Tribunal, a reference application was made under S. 256(1). This was rejected by the Tribunal. Thereafter a reference application was made under S. 256(2) before this Court and the Court in ITR Ref. No.157 of 1982 answered the question in favour of the assessee on 26th June, 1989. It is not known whether the Revenue has taken the matter before the Supreme Court.
(3.) IN this case, the ITO passed a consequential order giving effect to the order of the CIT passed under S. 263 and out of the order passed by the ITO, the matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order disallowed the sum of Rs. 8,47,929.;