2016 (1) TMI 526 - AT - Income Tax

Non deducting tax at source on uniform reimbursements to its employees - Salary u/s. 17(1)(IV) liable for TDS deduction - whether uniform allowance to be exempt u/s. 10(14)(I) r.w.r. 2BB? - Held that - The assessee s arguments are not liable to be accepted. It transpires from the stated circular no. 23/2010 issued on 29th March, 2010 prescribing uniform of its employees that what is prescribed is only dress of its employees i.e. shirts, trousowers, ties, belts for gents and salwar kameez etc for lady employees without any particular shade or texture thereof. We are of the view that the same is only a general instruction much less than the dictionary meaning of uniform as quoted by the lower authorities. This general prescription does not even satisfy the meaning of the word uniform in common parlance i.e. of that same kind or type. We further notice that the Assessing Officer in his order quotes similar plea rejected in preceding assessment year as well which stood upheld up to lower appellate stage. The assessee s arguments do not dispel the same. We hold accordingly that its arguments herein above have to be rejected on merits as well consistency. We affirm the lower appellate order in all for cases. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against CIT(A)'s order upholding ACIT(TDS)'s action regarding tax deduction from uniform reimbursements.

Analysis:
The appeals were related to the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source from uniform reimbursements made to employees. The Assessing Officer treated the uniform allowance as additional to salary, subject to TDS deduction under the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this action, stating that the normal clothing worn by employees did not constitute a uniform as defined in the Act. The CIT(A) rejected the appellant's argument that the uniform allowance was exempt under section 10(14)(i) and Rule 2BB, emphasizing that no prescribed uniform existed. The ACIT(TDS) held the appellant in default under section 201(1) for not deducting tax at source, a decision affirmed by the ITAT.

The ITAT noted that a previous coordinate bench had dismissed the appeals based on the absence of a prescribed uniform for employees. However, the assessee submitted additional evidence, including a circular prescribing a dress code, to support its claim of providing uniforms. The circular mandated employees to wear specific attire but lacked the consistency and specificity required for a uniform. The ITAT agreed with the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the prescribed dress code did not meet the definition of a uniform. The ITAT rejected the assessee's arguments, affirming the lower appellate order and dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding tax deduction from uniform reimbursements. The ITAT found that the prescribed dress code did not qualify as a uniform, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claims for exemption under section 10(14)(i) and Rule 2BB. The ITAT's detailed analysis focused on the lack of uniformity in the prescribed attire, supporting the lower authorities' decisions and emphasizing consistency in interpretation and application of tax laws.