Ratio of the Case: Though section 36(1)(v) requires a direct payment to a gratuity trust fund, payments made to the LIC Group Gratuity Scheme for the benefit of the employees is also allowable.
CLR Editorial Notes: The assessee in question had set up a gratuity fund which was duly approved by the CIT. However, instead of making payments to the fund directly, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as initial contribution and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as annual premium to the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) pursuant to the group Life Assurance Scheme framed by the LIC for the benefit of the employees of the assessee.
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction towards this payment on the ground that the payment towards the gratuity fund was not made directly to an approved gratuity fund and hence was not allowed recognition under section 36(1)(v). The CIT(A), Tribunal and High Court (257 ITR 39 (Mad)) upheld the assessee™s claim on the basis that the payment to LIC under the Group Life Assurance Scheme was for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the assessee under the policy issued by it and that the conditions stipulated in s. 36(1)(v) had not been violated. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, the Hon’ble court dismissed the appeal and held:
“While it is true that a fiscal statute has to be construed strictly and nothing should be added to or subtracted from it, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. From a bare reading of s. 36(1)(v), it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. On facts, it is evident that the assessee had absolutely no control over the fund created by the LIC for the benefit of the employees of the assessee and further all the contribution made by the assessee in the said fund ultimately came back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the CIT. Thus, the conditions stipulated in s. 36(1)(v) were satisfied.”
Case File Available for download