2018 (6) TMI 1520 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of the assessee towards fringe benefit expended for the purpose of levy of FBT - Held that - Referring to case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 1502 - ITAT AHMEDABAD), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the value of fringe benefit expended by the assessee for the purpose of levy of FBT. Counsel himself admitted that there is no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Fringe Benefits valuation discrepancy.
2. Charging of interest under section 115WJ.
3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(d).

Fringe Benefits Valuation Discrepancy:
The appellant contested the total value of fringe benefits confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) at ?4,04,68,953, as opposed to the returned fringe benefits of Nil. The AO relied on the auditors' report, which indicated the fringe benefit value. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing the auditors' quantification of fringe benefits in the tax audit report. The ld.CIT(A) referred to a previous case involving Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and concluded that the appellant was liable for fringe benefit tax based on similar circumstances. The Tribunal, considering the precedential decision and the appellant's admission of lack of merit, dismissed the appeal, confirming the fringe benefit valuation.

Charging of Interest under Section 115WJ:
The issue of charging interest under section 115WJ was deemed consequential by the ld.CIT(A), directing the AO to levy interest post the order's effect. This ground was intertwined with the fringe benefits valuation dispute and was decided in conjunction with the confirmation of the fringe benefit tax liability. The Tribunal did not provide a separate analysis for this issue, as it was contingent on the primary dispute regarding fringe benefits valuation.

Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(l)(d):
The appellant raised a concern regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(d) for alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate income particulars. However, the judgment did not delve into this issue in detail, and the decision primarily focused on the fringe benefits valuation discrepancy. The dismissal of the appeal encompassed all grounds raised by the appellant, including the potential penalty proceedings, without specific elaboration on the penalty aspect.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad primarily addressed the dispute related to the valuation of fringe benefits, with the decision favoring the confirmation of the assessed fringe benefit value. The analysis highlighted the reliance on auditors' reports, precedential cases, and the appellant's acknowledgment of the lack of merit in the appeal. The judgment did not extensively discuss the charging of interest under section 115WJ or the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(d), as these issues were intertwined with the central dispute on fringe benefits valuation.