9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 876 - AT - Income TaxDeduction on account of Employer s contribution toward Social Security Scheme - appellant contended that amounts were contributed by the employer under statutory provision and contribution did not give any vested right to the appellant, assessee may or may not get any benefit depending upon happening or non-happening of an event which is beyond the control of the appellant, It was only a contingent benefit to the assessee. The amount paid by the employer could not be treated as a perquisite in the hands of the appellant and liable to tax - Counsel submitted that tax effect in this case was merely Rs. 1,65,208 if interest charged u/s 234B is not taken into consideration. appeal filed by the revenue was not competent in the light of CBDT Instruction No.5/2008 dated 15.5.2008 - Held that - interest for computing tax effect is not to be taken into account but how much interest has been charged is not available on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs. 2 lakh or less in this case. no substance in this appeal therefore rejected
Issues:
1. Allowance of deduction for Employer's contribution toward Social Security Scheme. 2. Competency of the revenue's appeal based on tax effect. 3. Consideration of tax effect in determining the appeal. 4. Decision based on the appellant's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Analysis: Issue 1: Allowance of deduction for Employer's contribution toward Social Security Scheme The appeal by the revenue was against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing a deduction of Rs.5,00,629 on account of the employer's contribution towards a Social Security Scheme for the assessment year 2004-05. The appellant, a non-resident working as a General Manager, contended that the employer's contribution did not give any vested right to the appellant and was a contingent benefit. The CIT(A) relied on precedents and deleted the addition, concluding that the employer's contribution was not taxable as a perquisite. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the matter was fully covered by previous decisions where similar contributions were deemed non-taxable. Issue 2: Competency of the revenue's appeal based on tax effect The appellant argued that the tax effect in this case was minimal, making the appeal not competent as per CBDT Instruction No.5/2008. The revenue opposed this, claiming the tax effect exceeded the threshold. However, the Tribunal noted that the detailed calculations supporting the tax effect claim were not provided, making it impossible to determine conclusively if the tax effect was below the specified amount. As a result, the Tribunal could not establish the competency of the appeal based on the tax effect. Issue 3: Consideration of tax effect in determining the appeal The Tribunal highlighted the lack of detailed calculations regarding the tax effect, including the absence of information on the interest charged. Despite acknowledging that interest should not be considered, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of accurate data to ascertain the tax effect. Without the required documentation, the Tribunal could not definitively determine if the tax effect fell within the specified limit. Issue 4: Decision based on the appellant's non-appearance before the CIT(A) The revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have decided against the appellant due to non-appearance on various dates. However, the Tribunal clarified that even in ex parte cases, the CIT(A) is obligated to decide on the merit after reviewing the available material. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the matter was adequately covered by previous Tribunal decisions, and the appellant's non-appearance did not impact the outcome. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction for the employer's contribution towards the Social Security Scheme. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing detailed calculations to determine the tax effect and upheld the decision based on precedents, disregarding the appellant's non-appearance before the CIT(A).
|
