2003 (10) TMI 41 - HC - Income Tax

Perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) - free accommodation facility provided by the employer to its employees on board the rig in high seas - held that free boarding and free meals given to the technicians on the rigs cannot constitute a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) and therefore their value cannot be added to the salary income of the technician. Consequently, the Department cannot levy interest on Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (employer) under section 201/201(1A)

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether free accommodation provided by the employer to its employees on board the rig constitutes a perquisite.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in charging interest under section 201/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act due to the alleged perquisite.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding whether the free accommodation facility provided by the employer to its employees on board the rig should be considered a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had previously held that free boarding did not constitute a perquisite, a decision that was not challenged by the Department. The High Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd., where it was established that free boarding and meals for technicians on rigs did not amount to a perquisite. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Department could not levy interest under section 201(1A) on the employer.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the Assessing Officer's decision to charge interest under section 201/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act based on the alleged perquisite of free accommodation provided by the employer. The High Court found no merit in the Department's appeal, emphasizing that since the Tribunal's decision regarding free boarding as not constituting a perquisite was unchallenged, the Department could not levy interest on the employer. The High Court's judgment was guided by legal precedents and established principles, ultimately dismissing all three appeals and ruling against the Department, with no orders as to cost.

In conclusion, the High Court's comprehensive analysis and application of legal principles led to the dismissal of the Department's appeals, affirming that the free accommodation facility provided by the employer did not amount to a perquisite under the Income-tax Act. The judgment underscored the importance of consistency in legal interpretations and the significance of upholding decisions made by lower tribunals in similar cases, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to established legal standards in tax matters.