Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2008-09 against the order of CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad dated 30.03.2017.
This appeal was taken up for hearing on 04.11.2020 through Video Conferencing and both the parties were heard.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of fringe benefits for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 29.09.2008 admitting fringe benefits of Rs.2,46,35,094/-. The return was initially accepted ./2017 AY 2008-09 M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Sec’bad on 29.12.2010 and subsequently the case was reopened u/s 115 WG of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed from the computation of fringe benefits that there was a short accountal of fringe benefits amounting to Rs.2,27,37461/- between the expenditure debited to Profit & Loss a/c and FBT statement enclosed to the return of income. When the assessee was asked to furnish the details in respect of the short computation of fringe benefits, the assessee did not file any details. Therefore, the AO added a sum of Rs.2,27,37,461/- to the returned income of the assessee and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO on the ground that the assessee has not filed any details before the AO.
2.1. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal.
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the entire expenditure of Rs.5,07,000/- debited under "employees welfare" is attributable to the fringe benefit assessable u/s 115 WE (3) of the Income Tax Act.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the treatment of the depreciation claimed on motor cars of Rs.12, 79,314/- as fringe benefit.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the treatment of the depreciation claimed on aircraft of Rs.2,09,51,147/- as fringe benefit.
5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.
./2017 AY 2008-09 M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Sec’bad
The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has all the details and can reconcile the difference if given an opportunity. He therefore prayed for a remand to the A.O.
3.1. Ld.DR, however objected to the same.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we are satisfied that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issues to the file of AO for de-novo consideration in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal of the appeal by filing all necessary and relevant details within one month from the date of receipt of this order ad thereafter, the AO shall complete the assessment in accordance with law.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24th November, 2020.