9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the entrance fees and subscription paid by the employer company to the assessee can be considered as a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that such payments were not perquisites and thus deleting the same from the taxable income. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the entrance fees and subscription paid by the employer company to the assessee can be considered as a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary question in this case revolves around whether the entrance fees and subscription paid by the employer for the assessee's membership in two prestigious clubs constitute a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a Chief Manager at a bank, claimed exemption under section 10(14) of the Act, which was rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) who instead treated these payments as perquisites. The appellate tribunal examined the definition of 'perquisite' under section 17(2) which includes any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost or at a concessional rate by the employer. The tribunal noted that the term 'perquisite' denotes a personal advantage and is something that benefits an individual by going into their pocket. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to show that the amount paid towards the entrance fees and subscription was necessarily for the performance of his duties and beneficial for the business of the bank. The tribunal referred to the case of Brown v. Bullock (Inspector of Taxes) [1959-65] 40 TC 1 (Ch.D.), where it was held that even if club membership was virtually a condition of appointment and beneficial for fostering local contacts, the payments made by the employer were considered part of the emoluments of the office and thus taxable. The tribunal concluded that similar to the Brown case, the assessee in the present case did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the membership was wholly and exclusively for the bank's business. Issue 2: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that such payments were not perquisites and thus deleting the same from the taxable income. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on several tribunal decisions, particularly the case of Shambhu V. Sista v. Fifth ITO [1983] 5 ITD 445, to hold that the entrance fees and subscription were not perquisites. The Commissioner reasoned that as the Chief Manager of the bank, the assessee needed to promote bank business through these clubs, thus the fees and subscriptions were not personal benefits. However, the tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately differentiate the facts of the present case from those in Shambhu V. Sista. In Shambhu V. Sista, the nature of the job required the assessee to be a member of multiple clubs for business purposes, whereas in the present case, the assessee did not provide evidence that the membership was solely for business promotion and not for personal enjoyment. The tribunal also noted that the assessee did not present any evidence to show that the bank gained business due to his club memberships. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not treating the payments as perquisites and deleting them from the taxable income. Conclusion: The tribunal held that the entrance fees and subscription paid by the employer for the assessee's club memberships are perquisites under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting these amounts from the taxable income. The tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the ITO, thereby allowing the departmental appeal.
|
