2003 (2) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessee by way of rent-free accommodation- computation of the value of perquisite Held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessee by way of rent-free accommodation, the basis should be the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller in respect of similar accommodation by another person under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the value of perquisite in respect of residential accommodation.
2. Computation of the value of perquisite in respect of concessional electricity and water supplied.

Analysis:

*Issue 1: Determination of the value of perquisite in respect of residential accommodation*

The court was tasked with deciding whether the Tribunal was justified in limiting the value of the perquisite for residential accommodation to the value fixed by the prescribed authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act. The Assessing Officer initially valued the perquisite at 10% of the salary paid to the assessee. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner determined the fair rental value based on the U.P. Urban Buildings Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing a previous case involving a similar issue. The court referred to a previous judgment that established the standard for determining the market value of such perquisites based on the Rent Controller's standard rent under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act. The Revenue argued that local enquiries should have been the basis due to the absence of a Municipal Committee in the city. However, as this argument was not raised before the Tribunal, the court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee based on precedent.

*Issue 2: Computation of the value of perquisite in respect of concessional electricity and water supplied*

The second issue revolved around the computation of the value of perquisites related to free water and electricity provided by the employer to the assessee. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal fixed the value at Rs. 1,000, relying on a previous order concerning a different assessee from the same group. The Tribunal's decision was based on this previous order, but the statement of the case did not include the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, making it difficult for the court to understand the rationale behind the decision. As the issue regarding the computation of the value of perquisite for free water and electricity was not part of the reference made to the court, the court returned the second question unanswered.

In conclusion, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee based on established precedent but left the second question unanswered due to the lack of clarity in the documentation provided.