9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggesting that the ONGC did prescribe any uniform for its employees, at least for the period under consideration. If the stand of the ONGC was that the circular dated 05.12.1987 held the field, it ought to have produced such circular on record. Revenue had collected materials to suggest that there was no uniform prescribed. Statement of senior officer of the ONGC suggested that prescription for uniform made in the past was withdrawn since 1995. If the assessee desired to rebut such material, it had to produce necessary evidence in this respect. Having failed to do so, ONGC cannot criticize the Tribunal for referring to the circular dated 29.03.2010, which the ONGC itself desire to rely upon. An alternative submission was made to the effect that the dress code at the work place would qualify as uniform. We find two difficulties in accepting this submission. Firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any such dress code prescribed before the said circular dated 29.03.2010 was issued. In absence of any evidence, it is not possible for us to ascertain the nature of dress code and its effect. Even if we proceed on the basis, for the sake of argument that the dres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r group (as an armed service, an order, or a social or a work group) and serving as a means of identification. It can thus, be seen that the term 'uniform' in the context of dressing carries a precise meaning and a meaning which is entirely different from a far more broader concept of a general dress code. Under the circumstances, we find no merits in these appeals. The same are dismissed. - TAX APPEAL NO. 368 of 2016 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 371 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR.VANKATRAMAN, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR AKSHAT KHARE, ADVOCATE, MRS SUMAN KHARE, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR.MANISH BHATT, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These tax appeals contain the same assessee viz. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ('ONGC' for short). They involve identical question, concerning the same assessment year 2010-11. Four different appeals because of four different units of ONGC being involved with the Revenue. We may record facts from Tax Appeal No.368 of 2016 for convenience. 2. Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. On the basis of such materials on record, the Assessing Officer held that the employer had not prescribed any uniform and that the payment made to the employees as uniform allowances would not be covered by the exemption clause contained in section 10(14)(i) of the Act. He referred to the dictionary meaning of term 'uniform' as to conclude that unless there was a precise dress code with colour patterns, the same would not qualify as a uniform. He held that the assessee being liable to deduct tax at source, had failed to do so in terms of section 194 of the Act. He disallowed the expenditure incurred by the employer in paying such allowances. 5. ONGC carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner and contended that the employees did wear uniforms to maintain decorum at the office. The finding of the Assessing Officer that during survey, many employees were found not wearing the uniform, would be a matter of disciplinary action. Recording the statement of Shri R.P.Bhatt, senior finance and accounts officer, it was merely stated that ' he was not aware of human resource policy of appellant company. Further, merely because the same amount equivalent to unif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was deducted at source. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the appeals contending that; I. The ONGC itself produced the said circular dated 29.03.2010. In absence of such a circular, there was nothing on record to suggest that ONGC had prescribed any uniform for its employees. In fact, the statement of Shri R.P.Bhatt, senior finance and accounts officer of ONGC, would show that previous prescription of uniform was done away with effect from 16.11.1995. During survey, the employees were not found wearing any uniform. II. The ONGC was granted sufficient opportunity to produce necessary materials on record, no further chance should be given to correct the mistakes, if any committed. In any case, the statement of Shri R.P.Bhatt would show that even if uniform was prescribed under earlier circular dated 05.12.1987, the same was discontinued after 16.11.1995. III. The term 'uniform' though not defined under the Act or the Rules, carries a specific meaning. A dress code would not include the term 'uniform'. 11. It is undisputed that on any salary or allowance paid by the ONGC to its employees, there would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; contribution to the pension fund, the same would still not mean that no uniform was prescribed. It would therefore appear that ONGC also did not dispute the later portion of Shri R.P.Bhatt's statement that such allowance was adjusted towards employees' liability to pension fund. 13. Before the Tribunal, upon one round of remand, the ONGC produced the circular dated 29.03.2010. This circular prescribed certain dress code to be followed by the employees as under: The reimbursable amount for purchase of uniform and stitching/maintenance thereof is reimbursed to the employees every year on prescribed rate. 2. According to the instructions issued from time to time, all employees are compulsorily required to wear the uniform while on duty. It has however been observed that in spite of repeated instructions, employees are not wearing uniform on duty. Nonadhering to the existing guidelines on uniform/dress code has been viewed seriously. 3. Therefore, it has been decided that all employees who are reimbursed cost of uniform shall compulsorily maintain dress code while on duty. The dress code to be followed by the employee is annexed. 4. It is enjoined u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f senior officer of the ONGC suggested that prescription for uniform made in the past was withdrawn since 1995. If the assessee desired to rebut such material, it had to produce necessary evidence in this respect. Having failed to do so, ONGC cannot criticize the Tribunal for referring to the circular dated 29.03.2010, which the ONGC itself desire to rely upon. 16. An alternative submission was made to the effect that the dress code at the work place would qualify as uniform. We find two difficulties in accepting this submission. Firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any such dress code prescribed before the said circular dated 29.03.2010 was issued. In absence of any evidence, it is not possible for us to ascertain the nature of dress code and its effect. Even if we proceed on the basis, for the sake of argument that the dress code as referred to in circular dated 29.03.2010 or similar was prescribed during the period under consideration, we do not find that the same would qualify as prescription of a uniform. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the circular dated 29.03.2010. Under this circular, the employer prescribed a dress code for male emplo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
