IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.09.2019 Hon'ble Mr.Justice DR.VINEET KOTHARI and Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.SARAVANAN T.C.A.Nos.442 and 443 of 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras. ... Appellant in both appeals vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund No.2A Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14 .. Respondent in both appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 28.08.2009, in I.T.A.No.768/Mds/2009 and I.T.A.No.769/Mds/2009, respectively. For Appellant : M/s.S.Premalatha for Standing counsel Mr.G.M.Swaminathan in both appeals http://www.judis.nic.in 1/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. For Respondent : M/s.Pushya Sitaraman,Sr.Counsel for Ms.J.Sreevidhya in both appeals COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgement of Court was made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.) Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2009, dismissing Revenue's appeals against assessee M/s.United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai. relevant portion of order of learned Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference: "5. Now Revenue has disputed this finding of ld.CIT(A). main crux of arguments as advanced by ld.CIT(DR) is that assessee has not claimed exemption of its entire income from tax under any specific section of Act. other argument of Department is that assessee trust has sought registration under Section 12A despite having obtained approval of required authority under Part-B of Schedule IV of Act, which was obtained way back in year 1996. objection of ld.CIT(DR) is that u/s.10(23AAA) renewal of approval once in three years is required to be obtained, which has not been done, http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. hence no exemption is eligible to assessee-trust. 6.After hearing rival versions, it was found for fact that assessee has already obtained approval u/s 10(23AAA) as back as in 1996. assessee was also registered u/s 12A of Act, subsequently. Now moot question arises for our adjudication is if assessee is registered u/s 10(23AAA) as well as under Section 12A of Act, but its entire income is not taxable u/s 10(25)(iii), according to which entire income received by trustee on behalf of approved Superannuation Fund is exempt, would factum of such registration throw assessee-trust out of legislative benefit. According to us, it is not correct proposition and construction of law. If assessee is eligible for any specific exemption, even if it has not mentioned any specific Section or has mentioned wrong section, it would not debar it from benefit of specific exemption. Rather, it is duty of Assessing Officer to apply correct provisions of law. It is found that in so far as facts of case are concerned, there is no dispute at all. In our opinion also, assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(25)(iii) of Act. Hence, we confirm impugned finding of ld.CIT(A) and cannot allow these appeals of Revenue. 7.In result, both appeals of Revenue are http://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. dismissed. 8.The order pronounced in open Court on 28.08.09." 2. learned counsel for Revenue urged before us that since no specific provision, under which approval was obtained in respect of respondent assessee Trust fund, was mentioned at time of filing of return and approval granted under Part-B of Schedule-IV of Act requires renewal after three years and since said approval was not renewed, assessee was not entitled to exemption. 3. learned for assessee, however, submitted that Rule 2 of part-B of Schedule IV of Act does not require any such renewal every three years and since said Trust Fund of respondent assessee was duly approved under Part-B Schedule-IV of Act, exemption claimed by assessee under Section 10(25)(iii) of Act could not have been denied by respondent Revenue authorities. 4. appeals were admitted on following Substantial Questions of Law by coordinate Bench of this Court, on 14.06.2010, and said questions are quoted below: T.C.A.No.442 of 2010: http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. "(i)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(25(iii)) of Income Tax Act 1961 to tune of Rs.29,73,80,620/- is valid? (ii)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(25)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, even though assessee claim for exemption under Section 10(23AAB) of Act cannot be acceded because provision came into effect from 01.04.1997 only and whereas assessee was granted original approval by Commissioner of Income-Tax in 1996 itself? (iii)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting exemption under Section 10(25(iii)) of Income-tax Act, 1961, even though assessee should have followed procedure laid down in Section 10(23AAA) of Income-tax Act, 1961 to get exemption?" http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. T.C.A.No.443 of 2010: "(i)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(25(iii)) of Income Tax Act 1961 to tune of Rs.34,61,51,010/- is valid? (ii)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(25)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, even though assessee claim for exemption under Section 10(23AAB) of Act cannot be acceded because provision came into effect from 01.04.1997 only and whereas assessee was granted original approval by Commissioner of Income-Tax in 1996 itself? (iii)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting exemption under Section 10(25(iii)) of Income-tax Act, 1961, even though assessee should have followed procedure laid down in Section 10(23AAA) of Income-tax Act, 1961 to get exemption?" 5.We have heard learned counsel for parties. http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. 6.The said Ruling 2 of Part-B of Schedule IV of Act is quoted below for ready reference: "Approval and withdrawal of approval 2(1) Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or superannuation fund or any part of superannuation fund which, in his opinion, complies with requirements of rule 33, and may at any time withdraw such approval, if, in his opinion, circumstances of fund or part cease to warrant continuance of approval. (2)The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall communicate in writing to trustees of fund grant of approval with date on which approval is to take effect, and, where approval is granted subject to conditions, those conditions. (3)The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall neither refuse nor withdraw approval to any superannuation fund or any part of superannuation fund unless he has given trustees of that fund reasonable opportunity of being heard in matter. http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. 7. We do not find any such requirement of renewal of such approval granted by concerned authority to said Trust Fund, which is entitled to exemption under Section 10(25)(iii) of Act. Therefore, this contention of learned counsel for Revenue is absolutely misplaced. There is no dispute that assessee held this approval for assessment period in question, viz., assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04. Tribunal has found that assessee had already obtained approval under Section 10 (23AAA) of year 1996 and registration under Section 12(A) of Act subsequently and therefore entire income would be exempted under Section 10(25)(iii) of Act. learned Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in upholding exemption in favour of assessee irrespective of fact that provision of law, under which exemption was quoted, was not correctly mentioned by assessee. 8. We do not find any justification for referring to provisions under Section 10(23AAA) of Act in this case. provisions of Section 10(25)(iii) of Act, under which assessee claimed exemption in question, is clearly applicable to approved superannuation fund and assessee's Trust fund was duly approved by competent authority in http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. present case. Therefore, we do not find any error in order passed by learned Tribunal or any Substantial Question of Law to be arising in present appeals filed by Revenue. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, we answer Substantial Questions of Law in favour of assessee and as against Revenue. Accordingly, appeals are liable to be dismissed and same are dismissed. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 19.09.2019 msk To 1.United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund No.2A Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14. 2.The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J. http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Order dated 19.09.2019 in T.C.A.Nos.442 & 443/ 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund, Chennai-14. and C.SARAVANAN,J. msk T.C.A.Nos.442 and 443 of 2010 19.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras v. United India Insurance Company Employees Pension Fund