SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
These appeals are by two different assessees against two
separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-
31, New Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. Since, the
issues in dispute in both the appeals are common, the appeals
ITA Nos.6176/Del/2016 & 6177/Del/2016
have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated
order for the sake of convenience.
The common dispute in both the appeals relate to the
additions made to the salary income. Briefly the facts, more or
less common in both the appeals are, the assessees are resident
individuals. Both the assessees were in employment with M/s.
San Lorenzo AG, Switzerland. In the year under consideration,
Sh. Ravinder Kumar received gross salary of CHF 1,30,000/-.
Whereas, Smt. Rita Kumari received salary of CHF 97,499/-. In
course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, while
examining the returns of income filed by both the assessees,
noticed that the salary income offered by the assessees are lesser
than the amount received. On further verification, he found that
the employer had made various deductions, such as, federal
pension fund, fixed cantonal charges, insurance etc. After
reducing the deductions made by the employer, the assessees
have offered the net salary income. When the Assessing Officer
called upon the assessee to explain, why the gross salary income
received by the assessee should not be taxed, the assessee
submitted that the salary was received net of deductions. Hence,
the net salary income is taxable. Proceeding further, the assessee 2 | P a g e
ITA Nos.6176/Del/2016 & 6177/Del/2016
submitted that since, the deductions made are diversion of
income at the source itself, they cannot be included in the salary
income of the assessee for taxation purposes. The Assessing
Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the
assessee and brought the gross salary income to tax. The decision
of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by learned Commissioner
(Appeals).
Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee
reiterated the stand taken before the departmental authorities.
However, he fairly submitted that the Tribunal has decided
identical issue against the assessees in the preceding assessment
years.
Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in
assessees’ own case in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12,
the issue has been decided against the assessees by the Tribunal.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the
materials on record. Undisputedly, from the gross salary income
received by the assessee certain deductions were made by the
employer towards federal pension, fixed cantonal charges,
insurance etc. The deductions made by the employer were
3 | P a g e
ITA Nos.6176/Del/2016 & 6177/Del/2016
reduced from the gross salary income by the assessees and net
salary income was offered to tax.
In this regard, the submissions of the assessees are, since
the employer had deducted the amount in dispute at the source,
it will amount to diversion of income at source as the assessee
never received such amount as part of salary. We are not
convinced with the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. From
the nature of deduction made by the employer, it is very much
clear that from the salary income certain amounts were deducted
towards the future benefits of the assessees. Therefore, such
deductions certainly are part of the salary received by the
assessee. That being the case, the salary income has to be taxed
on gross basis. It is observed, identical issue came up for
consideration before the Tribunal in case of the concerned
assessees in the preceding assessment years i.e. assessment
years 2007-08 and 2010-11. While deciding the issue, the
Tribunal in order dated 04.08.2017 in ITA No.5303/Del/2014
and Ors. and ITA No. 5308 to 5310/Del/2014, dated 19.09.2017
has decided the issue against the assessee by holding that the
gross salary income received by the assessee is taxable. There
being no difference either in factual or legal position in the 4 | P a g e
ITA Nos.6176/Del/2016 & 6177/Del/2016
impugned assessment year respectfully following the earlier
decisions of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the additions made
in respect of both the assessees. Grounds raised are dismissed.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2022
Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th December, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
5 | P a g e
