DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1445/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 144523514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S DUTTA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D SHAH LD

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1445/KOL/11-B-GM 1 , B , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- B CALCUTTA () BEFORE .., SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /AND '#'$ 1&', SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !( / ITA NO. 1445/KOL/2011 )'# *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG PVT. LTD PAN: AAACH 7474G (&- / APPELLANT ) - ' - - VERSUS -. (/0&-/ RESPONDENT ) &- ) /FOR THE APPELLANT / SHRI P.S.DUTTA, LD.CIT/DR /0&- ) / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI MIRAJ D.SHAH, ADVOCATE, LD.AR 1'2 3 /DATE OF HEARING : 21-06-2012 4* 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21-06-2012 5 / ORDER PER BENCH THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL)(A)-VII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.347/CIT (A)-VIII/KOL/09-10 DATED 03-08-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CONTRIBUT ION TO SUPERANNUATION FUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,58,464/- AGA INST WHICH ONLY OF RS. 7,20,000/- IS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF FRINGE BENEFITS AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,38,464/- IS NOT LIABLE TOFBT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXPENDITU RE OF RS. 13,59,575/- UNDER THE HEAD STAFF TRAINING EXPENSES AGAINST WHICH ONLY OF RS. 3,01,210/- IS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF FRINGE BENEFIT AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S. 10,58,365/- IS NOT LIABLE TO FBT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXPENDITU RE OF RS. 2,70,596/- UNDER THE HEAD SEMINAR EXPENSES AGAINS T WHICH ITA NO.1445/KOL/11-B-GM 2 ONLY 13,643/- IS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF VAL UATION OF FRINGE BENEFITS AND BALANCE AMOUNT IS NOT LIABLE TO FBT. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXPENDITU RE OF RS. 35,73,788 UNDER THE HEAD STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES A GAINST WHICH ONLY RS. 14,11,138/- IS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE P URPOSE OF VALUATION OF FRINGE BENEFITS AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,62,650/ - IS NOT LIABLE TO FBT. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY, AND! OR RESCIND ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 3. SHRI P.S.DUTTA, LEARNED SR. CIT/DR REPRESENTED O N BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI MIRAJ D.SHAH , ADVOCATE, LEARNED AR REPRESENTED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIT/DR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL WAS AGAINST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF FRINGE BENEFIT TAX BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRO VIDED THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPELLED TO PASS AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON T HE BASIS OF EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME SHOWING THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT OF RS 94,66,274/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ES TIMATED THE SAME AT RS. 4 CRORES. 5 IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE EVIDENC ES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT A REMAND REPORT HAD BEEN CALLED FOR AND THE FRINGE BENEFIT VALUE HA D BEEN SHOWN AT RS.94,55,300/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES AS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, CONFIRMED THE V ALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AS PER CHART PROVIDED IN PAGES 20-21 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VE HEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT WA S THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AR FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.1445/KOL/11-B-GM 3 INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GRANTED COMPLETE RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT ONLY GIVEN THE FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AND DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LE ARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENC ES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REMAND REPORT A ND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS), WHICH CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE STAND CONFIRMED. THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. 6 5 1 7 1' 8 69 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AS DICTATED ON DT 21-06-2012 *PP/SPS 5 3 /)): ;:*< / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . &- / THE APPELLANT : D.C.I.T, CIR-8, AAYKAR BHAWAN, 5 TH FL.,P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQ, KOL-69. 2 /0&- / THE RESPONDENT- M/S.HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT.LT D A-36, MEHTAB HOUSE, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110044. 3 4. . )5' / THE CIT, )5' ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5 . =)8 /)' / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . 0: /)/ TRUE COPY, 5'1/ BY ORDER, 6 !' /ASSTT REGISTRAR SD/- SD/- ( .. , ) ( C.D RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( '#'$ 1&' , ) (GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE 21-06-2012