1980 (4) TMI 192 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against addition of perquisite element in income tax assessment
- Interpretation of company rules regarding reimbursement of salary paid to servants
- Application of Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular in determining perquisite value
- Distinction between direct payment and reimbursement in tax assessment
- Evaluation of perquisite for proper maintenance of premises

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed by the assessee against the addition of Rs. 2,760 as a perquisite element in the income tax assessment. The dispute arose from the amount of Rs. 4,200 received by the assessee from the employer for reimbursement of salary paid to two servants. The Commissioner of IT (Appeals) confirmed the addition based on the difference between the estimated perquisite value by the assessee and the amount received as reimbursement. The assessee contended that the company rules authorized reimbursement for the maintenance of premises, irrespective of whether the servants were directly employed by the company or by the employee. The assessee also argued that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes should apply in this case.

The Tribunal analyzed the company rules and found that they indeed allowed reimbursement of salary paid to servants for the maintenance of premises. The Tribunal rejected the argument that there was a distinction between direct payment and reimbursement, emphasizing that the purpose of engaging the servants was for the proper maintenance of the house. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case where the entire reimbursement was treated as a perquisite due to different circumstances. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the value of the perquisite as calculated by the assessee, based on the circular, was correct. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief of Rs. 2,760 to the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and providing relief of Rs. 2,760. The decision highlighted the importance of company rules authorizing reimbursement for the maintenance of premises and the application of specific circulars in determining the value of perquisites for tax assessment purposes.