Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C ’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]
आदेश / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai /2014 :- 2 -: (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.06.2014 for the Assessment Year (AY)
2009-2010.
The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
‘’1. That the order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and affirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(‘CIT(A)’J is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to Appellant.
2. That the learned CIT(A) earned in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.
Training and Education expenses:
That the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Training and Education expenses of ₹59,27,479/- is chargeable to Fringe Benefit Tax (‘FBT’).
That the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Training and Education expenses of ₹59,27,479/- is incurred towards in-house training for the employees of the Appellant, which is not chargeable to FBT.
Communication expenses:
That the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Communication expenses amounting to ₹73,76,101/- is chargeable to FBT.
6. That the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Communication expenses amounting to Rs 99,47,966 is incurred for availing bandwidth services, which is not chargeable to FBT.
Notwithstanding the Appellant’s treatment in the return of income, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Communication expenses of ₹25,71,865/- (incurred for availing bandwidth services) has been inadvertently discharged to FBT.
8. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the claim of excess FBT discharged on Communication expenses of ₹25,71,865/- by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd without
ITA No.2428 /2014 :- 3 -: appreciating the fact that Goetze India Ltd is confined to cases where the claim is made only before the AO and not before the appellate authorities. The CIT(A) ought to have entertained and adjudicated on the claim of Appellant.
Medical reimbursement:
That the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the medical allowance amounting to ₹75,47,083/- to FBT.
That the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the medical allowance amounting to ₹90,87,040/- is not chargeable to FBT.
Notwithstanding the Appellant’s treatment in the return of income, the AO and the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that medical expenses of Rs 15,39,957 has been inadvertently discharged to FBT.
That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the claim of excess FBT discharged on medical allowance of Rs 25,7 1,865 by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd without appreciating the fact that Goetze India Ltd is confined to cases where the claim is made only before the AO and not before the appellate authorities. The CIT(A) ought to have entertained and adjudicated on the claim of Appellant..
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal stated hereinabove, before commencement of or at the time of hearing’’.
The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.
The appellant namely M/s. Hanon Automotive Systems India Private Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories. The return of fringe benefits for the AY 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2009 disclosing total /2014 :- 4 -: value of Rs. 2,39,46,017/-. The assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(4), Chennai (hereinafter called “AO”) vide order dated 08.12.2011 passed u/s. 115 WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) at value of �4,74,46,600/- after making disallowance of expenses and additions towards medical reimbursement expenses of �15,09,417/-, contribution to superannuation fund �82,39,789/-, training and education expenses of �59,27,479/-, employees welfare of �3,06,421/, communication expenses of �14,75,220/- and food expenses of �60,42,257/-.
Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee- 4. company preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order granted relief in respect of food expenses, employee’s welfare expenditure, contribution towards superannuation fund and balance additions were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
Aggrieved by that part of the ld. CIT(A) order, which is 5. against assessee-company, the assessee company is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing of the appeal, assessee had filed additional evidence in respect of in-house training expenditure in the form of passport copies of employees in order to substantiate that the expenditure was incurred only towards in-house training. It /2014 :- 5 -: is submitted that additional evidence is crucial for determining the appeal. Thus, it is prayed that additional evidence should be admitted.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection in admitting the additional evidence.
Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we 7. are of the considered opinion that additional evidence filed before us is crucial in determining the issue in appeal. We are also satisfied with the reasons given as to why the additional evidence could not be produced before lower authorities. Therefore, we admit the additional evidence. In the circumstances, we remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue in appeal afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 12th day of December, 2019, at Chennai.