SUDIP RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

2 Sudip Rungta Assessment Year:2011-12 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the AO in which benefit of exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act was erroneously denied.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were unjustified in law in treating the performance bonus received by the appellant to be part of the salary for the purpose of determining qualifying amount in arriving at the exemption allowable u/s 10(13 A) of the Income Tax Act.

3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below ought to have held that for the purpose of computing qualifying amount u/s 10(13A) of the Act the amount received by the appellant as performance bonus did not partake character of the salary.

5. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.

3 Sudip Rungta Assessment Year:2011-12 has stated that the total rent paid during the year was Rs. 8,20,000/- only. As per Form 16 assessee’s basic salary was Rs. 30,00,000/-. The assessee in reply to query asked by Assessing Officer, has submitted written explanations before Assessing Officer that for the purpose of calculations of exemption u/s 10(13A), salary will include only ‘basic salary’ and nothing else and hence, rent paid over 10% of the basic salary that is Rs. 8,20,000/- minus Rs. 3,00,000/- (being 10% of Rs. 30,00,000) has to be allowed. However, Assessing Officer noted that as per income tax rule read section 10(13A) which clearly stipulates that any commission or bonus linked to the turnover or the performance has to be treated as salary and hence, ‘performance bonus’ definitely is covered under the term ‘salary’ as per the meaning assigned to the definition of ‘salary’ for the purpose of calculating exemption u/s 10(13A). ‘Performance bonus’ cannot be comprehended as an allowance or perquisite as defined in Rule 2(h) of the Fourth Schedule to be excluded from the purview of ‘salary’. Thus, the assessee’s total salary for computations for exemptions u/s 10(13A) for the year under assessment comes to Rs. 30,00,000/- plus Rs. 150,00,000/- which is Rs. 180,00,000/- - 10% of which comes to Rs. 18,00,000/-. Since the assessee has paid rent of Rs. 8,20,000/- which is much less than this amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- the assessee is not entitled to any benefit u/s 10(13A) of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer denied the benefit u/s 10(13A) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

8. On the contrary, the appellant submitted before Assessing Officer that Rs. 150,00,000/- was paid during the financial year as the performance bonus which could not to be considered as part of salary within the meaning of 4th Schedule of I. T. Act. The appellant also relied over the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Ghoshal 125 ITR 744 wherein it is held that the bonus

5 Sudip Rungta Assessment Year:2011-12 received by the assessee did not pertake character of salary. We note that the dispute in the assessee’s case under consideration in only on the “meaning of salary”. The assessee is a salaried individual. He had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,61,97,296/-. In course of assessment the assessee had filed Form 16 in support of the salary offered to tax in the return of income. The AO required the assessee to explain the manner in which the exemption u/s 10(13A) of Rs.8,47,742/- in respect of house rent allowance was calculated. In response the assessee filed detailed working along with explanations. The assessee explained that term ‘salary’ for the purposes of Section 10(13A) includes only ‘basic salary’ and ‘dearness allowance’ and nothing more. The AO however in his impugned order held that the ‘performance bonus’ received by the assessee also formed part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of Section 10(13A) and accordingly re-computed the exemption available u/s 10(13A) thereby resulting in disallowance of the entire exemption claim of Rs. 8,47,742/-.The ld. Counsel submits that the findings of the AO are contrary to the extant provisions contained in Rule 2A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Clause (h) of Rule 2A specifically provides that ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provede, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, the performance bonus received by the appellant did not form part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act. We note that the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs B.Ghosal (125 ITR 444) is on identical facts wherein on exact same set of facts the Court had held that ‘performance bonus’ does not form part of ‘salary’ as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A for the purposes of Section 10(13A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Considering the facts narrated above, we note that total rent paid by the assessee during the year is to the tune of Rs. 8,20,000/-. The basic salary for the purpose of computation of house rent disallowance is Rs. 3,00,000/- (10% of Rs. 30,00,000/- being basic salary). Therefore, excess of rent paid over 10% of salary comes at Rs. 5,20,000/- (Rs. 8,20,000/- - Rs. 3,00,000/-). Therefore, assessee is entitled for house rent allowance at Rs. 5,20,000/- u/s 6 Sudip Rungta Assessment Year:2011-12 10(13A) of the Act. Assessing Officer is directed to allow the exemption of HRA at Rs. 5,20,000/-.

Order pronounced in the Court on 10.01.2020