9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, at the outset both the parties submitted that the facts and the issue involved in both the appeals are identical except for the amount and therefore the submissions made by them in case of one year would be equally applicable to the other. We therefore proceed with the facts of assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 2402/AHD/2010. 3. The facts as culled out from the order of lower authorities are as under 4. For A.Y. 2006-07 Assessee electronically filed return of income and fringe benefit tax on 31.12.2006 showing total value of fringe benefit at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that the value of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) was declared at Rs. Nil by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny payment to any employee or not incurring any expenditure for any employee so as to attract FBT. Vide said judgment, Hon High Court has granted ad-interim relief by directing that the assessees shall deposit the amount of FBT in a separate account to be opened and maintained with a scheduled nationalized bank subject to the condition that amount so deposited shall not be utilized for any purpose and no charge shall be created on such deposits nor it shall be used as a collateral for obtaining any loan against the same. However, the Hon. High Court at para 3 of the judgment has very categorically clarified that the ad-interim relief granted shall be applicable only in case where the assessee disputes the liability to the extent of being co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer by holding as under: "4.6 On a combined reading of the speech of the Finance Minister, the Notes on Clauses and the Explanatory Memorandum (Circular No. 8 dt. 29.8.2005), it is evident that the FBT was introduced in order to tax the benefits which could not be brought within the scope of "perquisite". This includes cases where the benefits are collectively enjoyed by the employees and cannot be attributed to any individual employee. Of course, where the benefit is enjoyed by a person who is not an employee, no FBT can be levied. However, it is for the assessee to show that the benefit was enjoyed by non-employees. The appellant has argued that even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fringe benefits at Rs. 1,34,91,288/- is also confirmed. This ground thus fails." 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. Before us, the learned A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the Lower Authorities and further relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry (supra). 8. The learned D.R. on the other hand pointed to the relevant observations of the Assessing Officer and thus supported the order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessee has considered the value of fringe benefit at Rs. Nil but however in the Tax Audit Report filed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
