Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM]
ORDER
Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 15.01.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-Asansol relating to A.Y.2006-07.
This appeal arises out of an order passed determining the value of fringe benefit for the purpose of payment of fringe benefit tax under the provision of section 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).
The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of coal mining. For A.Y.2006- 07 the assessee filed return of value of fringe benefit along with the return of income on 20.11.2006. The value of fringe benefit disclosed in the return so filed was Rs.22,24,52,306/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny u/s 115WE(3) of the Act. In the course of hearing, before the AO the assessee submitted that the computation of value of fringe benefit as filed on 20.11.2016 was erroneous and a revised computation disclosing the value of fringe benefit at Rs.11,68,11,113/- was filed. The revised computation of value of fringe benefit was owing to mistake in calculation of fringe benefit on employees welfare, conveyance, tour and travel as submitted in the original
2 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 return. The AO did not entertain the revised computation of the value of fringe benefit for the reason that no revised audit report was furnished in support of the revised value of fringe benefit. Accordingly the AO passed an order u/s 115WE(3) of the Act determining the value of fringe benefit as disclosed in the return filed by the assessee at Rs.22,24,52,306/-.
The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO for the reason that the assessee did not file the revised return of the value of fringe benefit as contemplated u/s 115WD(4) of the Act. According to CIT(A) as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) no claim can be entertained without the assessee filing a revised return. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the order of AO for the reason that revised return of value of fringe benefit was not filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions. The restriction on examination of a claim made by an assessee without filing a revised return is not applicable to the appellate authorities under the Act and such restriction is applicable only to the AO entertaining a claim by an assessee without filing a revised return. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Raja Rani Gulati vs CIT Central Tilak 346 ITR 543 (All) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 6 DTR 233. Following the aforesaid decisions we hold that CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the revised computation of value of fringe benefit filed by the assessee. We hold that the same ought to have been considered on merits by CIT(A).
3 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules 1963 in which he has prayed that revised audit report quantifying the value of fringe benefit as made in the revised computation of value of fringe benefit filed before AO has now been obtained and the same should be considered by the Tribunal as additional evidence. It was submitted by him that the AO rejected the revised computation of value of fringe benefit for the reason that the revised figures are not supported by revised audit report. In the application for admission of additional evidence it has been prayed that the revised audit report could not be filed before the lower authorities for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It has been pointed out that the management was appraised of the implications of not getting the revised calculation of fringe benefit certified by revised audit report. The management employed a Chartered Accountant M/s. M.Choudhury & Co and obtained a report on revised fringe benefit value calculation. It has been prayed that since the determination of fringe benefit based on the revised calculation has to be made in accordance with law, the revised audit certificate should be considered and the issue decided on merits without any hindrance of technicalities.
We have considered the reasons for filing the additional evidence before the Tribunal and are satisfied that additional evidence is required to be admitted for consideration as it is necessary for determining the true tax liability of the assessee. The additional evidence is therefore admitted for consideration.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the question of determination of value of fringe benefit to the AO for fresh consideration in the light of the revised computation of the value of fringe benefit and the revised audit report filed as additional evidence before the Tribunal. The AO will decide the issue afresh in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of being 3
4 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 heard to the assesee and considering the documents referred to above. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 12.05.2017.