ARUP BHOWMICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-18(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is an employee of M/s. ONGC Limited. The returns of income filed for all the three years under consideration were initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1). Thereafter a survey was carried out by the TDS Wing of the Department at the premises of M/s. ONGC Limited situated in the State of Gujarat. As found during the course of survey, ONGC had made payments to its employees on account of conveyance, maintenance and repair expenses, advance salary, medical allowance, uniform allowance, Air and Railway travel and Gold Medal during the , 198 & 199/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Page 2 of 5 years under consideration, but the said amounts were not included in the income of the employees for the purpose of deduction of tax at source. It was also found that the said amounts were not included in their incomes declared by the employees of M/s. ONGC Limited including the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessments of the assessee for all the three years under consideration and issued notices under section 148 after recording the reasons. During the course of reassessment proceedings, it was claimed by the assessee that the amounts paid on account of conveyance, maintenance and repair expenses, uniform expenses and Gold Medal having been already subjected to Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT), the same was not liable to be included in his salaried income. However, in the absence of any evidence filed by the assessee to show the payment of FBT on these amounts, the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee. Similarly, the claim of the assessee as regards exemption in respect of other amounts being received towards reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred in the performance of duties was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. Accordingly, all these amounts were added by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessments made for all the three years under consideration under section 143(3) read with section 147 vide orders dated 30.12.2011. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed all the additions made by the Assessing Officer for the same reasons as given by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the total income of the assessee for all the three years under consideration are as under:- , 198 & 199/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Page 3 of 5 Sl. No. Nature of Assessment Years disallowance 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 (a) 11,790 10,604 9,881 On account of conveyance, maintenance and repair expenses (CMRE) (b) On account of 15,000 9,708 15,000 advance salary (c) On account of 15,000 9,708 15,000 medical allowance (d) 9,727 15,792 10,300 On account of uniform allowance (e) On account of 68,905 1,09,590 75,409 reimbursement of expenses for journey by air and railway from Kolkata to Ankleshwar to attend duty (f) On account of 13,700 - - purchase of railway tickets (g) On account of Gold - 14,265 - Medal given by the employer

At the time of hearing before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a confirmation letter dated 10.02.2016 issued by M/s. ONGC Limited as additional evidence confirming the payment of FBT in respect of uniform allowance, conveyance, maintenance and repair expenses (CMRE) and gold coin. Since the said confirmation letter issued by M/s. ONGC Limited on 10.02.2016 was not available to the assessee for filing the same as evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the same is relevant to decide the issues relevant to taxability of uniform allowance, CMRE, I have admitted the same. The ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection for admission of the same as additional evidence. He, however, has contended that the Assessing , 198 & 199/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Page 4 of 5 Officer may be given an opportunity to verify the said additional evidence and decide the relevant issues in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- ONGC [229 Taxman 415] as well as the other judicial pronouncements cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Since the ld. counsel for the assessee has no objection in this regard, I restore these issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh in the light of the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

As regards the other additions made by the Assessing Officer, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the nature of the relevant receipts has not been rightly appreciated either by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(Appeals). He has submitted that the assessee has not received any advance salary and even the other amounts were received by him on account of reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred in the performance of duties. He has submitted that the assessee is in a position to establish his case on these issues and urged that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to do so by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Since the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard, I restore these issues also to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.