ASHOK KUMAR TANDON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 09.10.2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in confirming an addition a sum of Rs. 4,41,348.00 out of an addition of Rs. 511348.00 made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards alleged income from perquisite not having disclosed by the appellant as per Form No. 16 issued to him without appreciating the fact that the income referred to has been reflected as Income from House Property by the appellant and has further erred in not appreciating the fact that the income from perquisite if taken shall result in taxing the same income twice. 2.) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 70000.00 made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards unvouched expenses without completely appreciating the facts and submissions made by the appellant during the course of assessment and appellant proceedings. 3.) That it is accordingly prayed that the additions confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee has filed his return of income for AY 2009-10 on 24th July 2009 declaring of income of Rs. 3092450/-. The assessee is employed with ITC Ltd. and has offered income of Rs. 2973863/- under the head “salary”. However, according to Form No. 16 issued by the employer the income under the head “salary” were shown at Page 2 of 3 Rs. 3415211/- and the difference has arisen because of the reason that assessee has rented his property to ITC Ltd. and the same property is allotted by the employer to the assessee as a rent free furnished accommodation. The perquisite value of this house of Rs. 441348/- has not been shown under the head 'salary‟ in the return of income. Therefore, ld Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 441348/- as perquisite on account of rent-free furnished accommodation provided to the assessee. On appeal, This addition was confirmed by the ld CIT (A). Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us and first ground of appeal is against the action of the ld CIT (A) in confirming the above addition.

4. Ld AR of the appellant submitted before us that this ground is covered against the assessee in where ground A to G were adjudicated against the assessee for earlier years vide order dated 25.07.2014. Ld DR also confirmed the fact. We have also carefully perused the order of coordinate bench in that appeal where the same is considered for the earlier year where assessee has not shown the value of the perquisite of the rent-free furnished house provided to the assessee by the employer and Coordinate bench has confirmed the addition of the same under the head „salary‟. In view of this, respectfully following the order of coordinate bench wherein para No. 12 the identical ground of appeal for the earlier years has been decided against the assessee holding that perquisite value of the rent free furnished accommodation shall be chargeable in the hands of the assessee as perquisite, we also hold that perquisite value of rent free furnished accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer shall be chargeable to tax as perquisite under the head “ salary” and therefore dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal.

5. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against the action of the ld CIT (A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,000/- on account of unvouched expenses.

6. Brief facts of the case is that assessee is also engaged in part time consultancy and against total receipt of Rs. 18,000/-. He has claimed various expenses amounting to Rs. 96060/- and depreciation on car of Rs. 39795/-. The ld Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 70,000/- as no books of account are maintained, expenses incurred are unvouched and on account of personal use of car. Before the ld CIT (A) assessee submitted written submission, which were rejected holding that assessee has neither filed any evidence of income or expenses and ld CIT (A) was also of the opinion that existence of consultancy income is also in doubt. Therefore, the assessee has preferred an appeal before us against this disallowance as per ground No .2.

7. The ld AR of the appellant submitted that identical issue has been decided in case of the assessee in ITA No. 3051/Del/2010 while deciding ground No (h) disallowance of Rs. 20,000/- confirmed by the ld CIT(A) in his order was upheld by ITAT also. Ld DR also submitted that the issue is covered by the above decision referred by ld AR.