2021 (7) TMI 1112 - HC - Income Tax

Computing value of perquisites u/s 17(2) - assessee is a Trust constituted under Charitable Endowment Act, 1890 - value of residential accommodation provided by the Central Government or any State Government to the employees either holding office or post in connection with affairs of the Union or of such State or serving with any body or Undertaking under the control of such Government on such deputation - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is an instrumentality and/or agency of the Government and thus has to be treated at par with the Government employees under Table 1 of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? - Whether the appellant can be treated as an assessee in default without the Assessing Officer establishing that the appellant has extended any concession in the form of accommodation to its employees? - HELD THAT - As decided in INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 (2) , BANGALORE 2021 (7) TMI 1052 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is an instrumentality and/or agency of the Government for tax treatment.
2. Applicability of rules for computing perquisites for government employees to the appellant.
3. Obligation of Assessing Officer to establish concessions provided by the appellant to employees.
4. Treatment of appellant as an assessee in default without establishing concessions.
5. Application of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962b based on liability under Section 17(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolved around determining whether the appellant could be considered an instrumentality and/or agency of the Government, warranting tax treatment similar to government employees under Table 1 of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The court was tasked with assessing the nature of the appellant's operations and its relationship with the government to make this determination.

2. Another significant issue raised was the applicability of rules governing the computation of perquisites for government employees to the appellant. This involved a detailed examination of Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the appellant fell within the scope of these provisions, thereby necessitating compliance with the relevant rules.

3. The court also considered the Assessing Officer's obligation to establish any concessions provided by the appellant to its employees before applying Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This required a thorough review of the evidence presented regarding the accommodation provided by the appellant to its employees and whether any concessions were extended in this regard.

4. Additionally, the issue of treating the appellant as an assessee in default without the Assessing Officer establishing concessions related to accommodation provided to employees was deliberated upon. The court assessed the legal requirements for categorizing the appellant as an assessee in default and the necessity of proving the alleged concessions.

5. Lastly, the application of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962b was scrutinized concerning the creation of liability under the charging provision of Section 17(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court analyzed the interplay between these legal provisions to determine the appropriate application of Rule 3 in the context of the appellant's tax liability.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal based on the reasons provided in a related judgment, emphasizing the legal interpretations and factual assessments made in the case to resolve the various issues raised by the appellant.