ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2700/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 November 2015AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dealt with the issue in a generalized manner and had not evaluated the assessee's specific pleas for exclusion. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee company disputed additions made to its fringe benefits tax liability concerning employee welfare and conveyance expenses. The assessee claimed certain exclusions under specific sections of the Act, which it argued were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the assessee's claims for exclusion from fringe benefits tax, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115WE(3),Section 115WB(2)(E),Section 115WB(2)(F),Section 115WB(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
For Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli
Hearing: 07/10/2015Pronounced: 20/11/2015

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 27/01/2011 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31/12/2008 under section 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following Ground of appeal:-

(Assessment Year : 2006-07) “The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)16, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in confirming the following additions made to the Fringe Benefits by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 8(1) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ACIT) 1. Employee Welfare Rs. 4,64,382 2. Conveyance Expenses Rs. 14,98,823 The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts set out in the Statement of Facts and the explanation offered at the hearing detailing the difference between the expenses as classified in the Profit and loss Account and the expenses subject to FBT.”

3.

The dispute in the present appeal relates to the computation of value of fringe benefits assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 115WE(3) of the Act. The assessee-company is primarily aggrieved with certain exclusions claimed by it under the heads conveyance expenses and staff welfare expenses on account of section 115WB(2)(E) &(F)r.w.s. 115WB(3) of the Act.

4.

Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee referred to a chart containing details of various expenses debited under the head staff welfare expenses and conveyance expenses to demonstrate that the entire expenditure under the head could not be subject to the fringe benefit tax. It was also pointed out that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the specific submissions made by the assessee and, therefore, it was contended that the appellant would be satisfied, if the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for evaluating the assessee’s claim for exclusion as prescribed in section 115WB(2) of the Act.

5.

Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue did not oppose the plea of the assessee for remanding the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer.

(Assessment Year : 2006-07) 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, a perusal of the order of CIT(A) reveals that assessee has sought exclusion of specific amounts from the purview of fringe benefit tax on the strength of section 115WB(2)(E) &(F) r.w.s. 115WB(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) on the other hand has dealt with the issue in a generalized manner not evaluating the assessee’s plea for specific exclusions, for instance, exclusion sought in terms of section 115WB(2)(E) &(F) of the Act. In our view, the Ld. Representative for the assessee is quite justified in pleading for remanding the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer, so as to correctly assess the fringe benefit tax liability in the hands of the assessee- company.

7.

As a consequence, we set-aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the specific pleas of the assessee, and thereafter pass a fresh order on this aspect as per law. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an order afresh as per law.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2015.

More judgments on Section 115WE(3)

All 44 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115WE(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →