2008 (9) TMI 115 - HC - Income Tax

Salaries - Free meal coupons taxability as perquisite within the rule 3(7) (iii) deduction of tax at source - coupons were not utilized by employee for purchasing meals at an eating joints but were mis-used to purchase grocery items cosmetics items etc. from shops/super stores held that employer is not expected to presume misuse of coupons to warrant deduction of tax at source further conveyance allowance in respect of vehicles owned by employees cannot be treated as perquisite

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of free food/meal coupons distributed by the employer to employees.
2. Applicability of tax deduction at source on reimbursement of conveyance expenses to employees.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around the taxability of free food/meal coupons provided by the employer to employees. The Assessing Officer contended that the coupons were taxable perquisites under rule 3(7)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, leading to non-compliance penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially upheld the assessee's stand, finding no default on the employer's part for employee misuse. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the employer cannot foresee employee misuse, making it unjust to impose tax deduction liability based on estimated percentages. The judgment highlights that the liability to offer the amount for tax rests with the employee, not the employer. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeals due to the absence of a substantial legal question.

Issue 2:
The second issue concerns the tax treatment of reimbursement for conveyance expenses paid to employees. The Assessing Officer argued that such reimbursements were taxable perquisites under section 17(2)(iii)(c) of the Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the provision only pertained to the employer providing a vehicle, not ownership specifics. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the provision does not mandate employer or third-party vehicle ownership. As a result, the employer was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was not liable for interest or penalty under the Act. The judgment concluded that no legal question of substance arose from the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeals as no substantial legal questions arose from the issues discussed in the judgment.