JUDGMENT : Ranka, J. Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ITAT) in ITA No.893/JP/2012. It relates to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts which can be noticed are that the respondent is a corporation established by the Government of Rajasthan and is engaged in procurement, processing and trading of seeds, tractor and agriculture implements. The assessee claims that the accounts are audited. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer desired the assessee to explain:- (i) The expenses claimed to the tune of Rs. 9,82,874/- being prior period expenses, (ii) Contribution to LIC Group Gratuity Scheme amounting to Rs. 1,92,82,605/- and, (iii) Contribution to State Renewal Fund at Rs. 7,58,134/-. 3. After raising query and seeking explanation all the three amounts as aforesaid were disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the premise (i) that the prior period expenses pertained to earlier assessment years and is not required to be allowed, during the previous year relevant to the year under assessment. (ii) the Group Gratuity Scheme was not approved by the Commissioner which was mandatory and the same being not approved, the deduction under Section 36(1)(V)was not allowable. (iii) State Renewal Fund is not an allowable expenditure within the provisions of Section 37 (1). 4. The assessee assailed the same before the learned CIT (Appeals) who allowed all the three expenses. The tribunal also upheld the order of the CIT (Appeal) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 5. Learned Counsel for the Revenue contended that; (i) Prior period expenses was not at all an allowable expenditure particularly in view of the fact that they pertained to the earlier years and the assessee having followed the system of accounting the expenditure in the year in which it was incurred, the same was not allowable. (ii) The Group Gratuity Scheme was not approved by the Commissioner and it was mandatory for a claim to be deductible under Section 36(1)(v) to get it approved and once the Gratuity Insurance Scheme was not approved the claim was rightly disallowed . (iii) Insofar as the claim of contribution to State Renewal Fund is concerned he contended that the assessee could not prove the same to be allowable under Section 37(1) and thus the assessee having not been able to prove the expenditure the Tribunal erred in allowing all the 3 expenses. (iii) Insofar as the claim of contribution to State Renewal Fund is concerned he contended that the assessee could not prove the same to be allowable under Section 37(1) and thus the assessee having not been able to prove the expenditure the Tribunal erred in allowing all the 3 expenses. He further contended that substantial questions of law emerge out of the order of Tribunal and needs consideration. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and have considered his submissions and have perused the impugned order as also the order of the lower authorities and we are of the view that no substantial questions of law emerge out of the order of the Tribunal so as to call for interference of this Court. 7. Insofar as the prior period expenses is concerned a finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate Authorities that approval for payment of the said expenditure was given during the year under appeal therefore the liability crystallized during the year and similar method was being regularly followed by the assessee consistently and when there is a finding recorded by the Appellate Authorities that the expenditure crystallized during the year, was written in the books this year and on year to year basis was claimed in the same manner and fashion was rightly claimed and allowed during the year, is a finding of fact. 8. Insofar as disallowance of claim of Rs. 19282605/- is concerned, admittedly, the assessee-respondent has claimed to have applied for according approval of Group Gratuity Scheme to the concerned Commissioner on 31st March, 1981. Once the assessee files an application for approval of the scheme, it was for the Commissioner to have taken recourse of disposing of the said application either to approve or to reject the same. The same having not been done for the last more than almost 25 years, the assessee could not have been blamed for the same. There is no denial by the AO that application for approval has not been filed by the assessee on 31.3.1981. The same having not been done for the last more than almost 25 years, the assessee could not have been blamed for the same. There is no denial by the AO that application for approval has not been filed by the assessee on 31.3.1981. Even the Assessing Officer admits that the application for approval was submitted on 31st March, 1981 and both the Appellate Authorities have come to a definite finding of fact that once an application has been moved for approval and having not been rejected then the claim could not have been disallowed or the claim could not have been rejected merely because the Commissioner did not accord approval of the same. The assessee cannot be made to suffer for inaction of the revenue, admittedly the respondent-assessee is a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking or even otherwise the Commissioner ought not have slept over the application for approval for more than 25 years. The Appellate Authorities are well justified in coming to the said conclusion. Needless to mention that a finding has been given by the Tribunal that the amounts are being disallowed by the learned AO from year to year at least from the assessment year 1996-97 i.e. almost 20 years but is being allowed regularly in appeal therefore, for this reason also we reject the claim of the revenue. The Assessing Officer ought not have made a repeated addition merely for this purpose and a litigation of this nature ought not to have come before this court as appeals all throughout is being allowed year after year. On the one hand the revenue does not decide the application for approval and the amount is being disallowed by the Assessing Officer from year to year which is not at all justified. The Revenue is well advised not to make repetitive additions/disallowance for this purpose and expose its weakness before the Courts as on the one hand application for according approval has not been granted and for inaction of Commissioner amounts are disallowed and to incur wasteful public money either way as at least the respondent has also to incur public money to defend its case being a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking in filing repetitive appeals though succeeding year after year. Merely because the tax effect is more than what is prescribed in the Circulars be it old or the latest being in December 2015 is no ground to file such appeals, we though were inclined to levy cost on the Revenue but stop ourselves in doing the same to make it clear to the Revenue to be more careful in future that such kind of litigation deserves to be avoided as the Courts are choked with such frivolous litigation and is not able to concentrate on other important issues. 9. Insofar as the expenditure incurred on State Renewal Fund is concerned, said expenditure also goes to show that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government and was created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restricting in the State Public Enterprise and that a finding of fact has been recorded that the contribution made to the State Renewal fund is solely for the purposes of the welfare and benefit of the employees. In our view, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of business and expenditure of this nature being for business expediency is certainly allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In our view any normal expenditure for the welfare and benefit of employees is allowable expenditure under Section 37(1), the Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that it was a legal obligation of the respondent-assessee towards contribution of the said amount to the State Renewal Fund and there being a legal obligation as well in our view the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on all the 3 questions raised, in our view the deletion of disallowance is based on material evidence on record and is a finding of fact, no question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to emerge. We find no perversity or illegality in the order impugned so as to call for interference of this Court. 11. Accordingly the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.