Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.,, Baroda v. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(1),, Baroda

ITA 2265/AHD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 226520514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCG2861L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2265/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.,, Baroda
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(1),, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 07-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2265 & 2266/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 06-07 & 07-08 RESP. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. SARDAR PATEL VIDYUT BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA V/S . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (1) BARODA. PAN NO. A ACCG2861L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY REVENUE SHRI J. P. JHANGID SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE SHRI J. P. SHAH A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 03.10.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.10.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I BARODA ORDER DATED 28.04.2010 FOR A.Y.2006-07 & 20 07-08. THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E CONFIRMING TOTAL VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AT RS.49 92 570/- IN A.Y.2006-07 AND RS.27 07 177/- IN A.Y.2007-08. BOTH THE CASES ARE HEARD TOGETHER. T HE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS THEREFORE WE ARE DECIDING ALL IN A CONSOLIDATE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE LD. A.O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT FILED RETU RN FOR THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX AT RS.NIL. HOWEVER IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB OF THE IT ACT AUDITOR ITA NOS. 2265 & 2266/AHD/2010 A.YS. 06-07 & 07-08 RESPECTIVELY PAGE 2 HAD REPORTED VALUE OF THE FRINGE BENEFIT AT RS.45 9 2 570/- IN A.Y.2006-07 AND RS.27 07 177/- IN A.Y.2007-08. THE ASSESSEE WAS GI VEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT WHICH W AS NOT RESPONDED IN BOTH THE YEAR. THE LD. A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE HONB LE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.21121 OF 2006 IN CASE OF GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMM ERCE AND INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) DELIVERED ON 18.10.2005 H ELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY FRINGE BENEFIT TAX AND WORKED OUT THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX AT RS.45 92 570/- IN A.Y.2006-07 AND RS.22 07 177/- IN A.Y.2007-08. 3. IDENTICAL FINDINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) FOR A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 AND HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IT IS SEEN THAT THE STATUTORY AUDITORS OF THE ASSE SSEE IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED U/S.44AB HAVE THEMSELVES QUA NTIFIED THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFITS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ITEMS AT (A) TO (P) MENTIONED IN SECTION 115WB(2). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED ON THE EMPLOYEES OF T HE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY NO PART OF THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN INCURRED ON NON-EMPLOYEES. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSEL F DEPOSITED THE FBT INTO GOVERNMENT TREASURY AND NOT IN AN ESCROW A CCOUNT WITH A SCHEDULED BANK. THUS THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO HAV E CONSIDERED ITSELF TO BE PART OF CATEGORY (1) AS HELD BY THE HI GH COURT I.E. AN ASSESSEE WHO WAS FULLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS. HAVING REGARD TO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO FBT. THE ACTION OF THE AO I N THIS REGARD IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. FURTHER THE AO HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF TAXABLE FRINGE BENEFITS AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. HENCE VALUATION OF THE FRINGE BENEFITS AT RS.45 92 570/- IS ALSO CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND THUS FAILS. ITA NOS. 2265 & 2266/AHD/2010 A.YS. 06-07 & 07-08 RESPECTIVELY PAGE 3 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE CA SE OF GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2264 AND 2402/AHMEDABAD/2010 FOR A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08. SIM ILAR ARGUMENT WAS PUT FORTH BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD THE COORDINATE C BENCH ITAT AHMEDABAD HAD DECIDE D THIS ISSUE IN CASE OF GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION LTD. (SUPRA) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE COORDINATES OPERATION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AT RS.NIL BU T HOWEVER IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED UNDER SECTION 44AB THE STATU TORY AUDITORS HAVE QUANTIFIED THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AND BAS ED ON THE AFORESAID QUANTIFICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEP OSITED THE FBT INTO GOVERNMENT TREASURY AND NOT IN AN ESCROW ACCOU NT WITH THE SCHEDULED BANK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE TO BE COVERED IN THE DCATEG ORY-1 OF THE ASSESSEES WHO WERE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF FBT IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF HON.GUJARAT HIGH COURT (SUPRA). BE FORE US THE LEARNED A.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF A SSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON REC ORD. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ITA NOS. 2265 & 2266/AHD/2010 A.YS. 06-07 & 07-08 RESPECTIVELY PAGE 4 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE C BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION LTD. WE CONFIRM THE AC TION OF LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 7. IN RESULTS ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. THESE ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11.10.2013 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (T.R. MEENA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. '#$ / APPELLANT 2. &'#$ / RESPONDENT 3. )*)+ ' ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' - ' / CIT (A) 5. 01'' + ' ''' + 34 * / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 167 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ :/3' )' ' ''' + 34 * <