ACIT, New Delhi v. Shri Micheal Klien, New Delhi

ITA 2233/DEL/2011 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 223320114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AKXPK0843N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2233/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent Shri Micheal Klien, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 06-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2011
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 2233/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2233/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 46(1) NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 425 A 4 TH FLOOR MAYUR BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110001 VS. SHRI MICHEAL KLIEN C/O M/S ELECTROLUX KELVINATOR LTD. FLAT NO. 201-203 A-22 GREEN PARK MAIN AUROBINDO MARG NEW DELHI 110 016 (PAN/GIR NO. : AKXPK 0843N) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSEESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. SRUJANI MOHANTY SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 29.4.2 010 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 9 28 974/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TAX PAID BY EMPLOYE R ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED ` 9 28 97 4/- ON ACCOUNT OF TAX PAID BY THE EMPLOYER ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 2233/DEL/2011 2 WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS AMOUNT OF ` 9 28 974/- PAID AS TAX BY THE EMPLOYER WAS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND I FIND IN THE CASE OF M/S RBF R IG CORPN. LIC (RBFRC) VS. ACIT THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH-DELHI OF T RIBUNAL HELD THAT THE TAX PAID BY THE EMPLOYER ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEE WAS A BENEFIT OR AMENITY TO THE EMPLOYEE. IT WAS A P AYMENT BY THE EMPLOYER WHICH DISCHARGED AN OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOY EE WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE EMPLOYEE . IT FELL WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF PERQUISITE. IT WAS NOT A MONETARY PAYMENT THE MONEY WAS NOT PAID TO THE EMPLO YEE WHEN TAXES WERE PAID ON HIS BEHALF. IT WAS ONLY A DISCHARGE OF HIS OBLIGATION WHICH MIGHT GIVE A MONETARY GAIN OR MO NETARY BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYEE SUCH PAYMENT CANNOT BE EXC LUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(10CC) OF THE ACT. THUS THE TAX PAID BY AN EMPLOYER TO THE GOVERNMENT U/S. 192(1A) OF THE ACT ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEE WAS A PERQUISITE BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS BEING PROVIDED BY WAY OF MONETARY PAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE. HENCE SUCH TAX WO ULD BE EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 10(10CC) OF THE ACT. HENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S RBF RIG CORPN. LIC (RBFRC) VS. ACIT I DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 9 28 974/-. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. ITA NO. 2233/DEL/2011 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE MATTER CAN BE DISPOSED OF BY PERUSING THE RECORD AND HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD RELIED UP ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH ITAT DELHI IN THE C ASE OF M/S RBF RIG CORPN. VS. ACIT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE COULD NOT GIVE ANY CONTRARY DECISION IN THIS REGARD. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. ACCORDINGLY W E UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/7/2011 UP ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [C.L. SETHI] [C.L. SETHI] [C.L. SETHI] [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:- 06/7/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES