Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn.Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2717/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8002 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH C BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2717/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD. SARDAR PATEL VIDYUT BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA 390 007. PAN : AABCG 4029 R VS. DCIT, CIR.1(1) BARODA. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 22/06/2018 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/06/2018 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, BARODA DATED 18.9.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ S ASS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE TOTAL VALUE OF FRINGE B ENEFITS AT RS.4,04,68,953/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED FRINGE BEN EFITS OF RS.NIL OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.2717/AHD/2013 2 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 115WJ OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE ASSESSED TAX LIABILITY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR T HE ALLEGED CONCEALMENT AND/OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, DELET E OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITAT IN ONE OF ITS CONCERN VIZ. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. IN I TA NO.2265 AND 2266/AHD/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF TRIBUNALS ORDER. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THOUGH IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NIL FRINGE BENEFIT, BUT ON PE RUSAL OF THE AUDIT REPORT, IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT AUDITORS HAVE RE PORTED VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AT RS.4,04,68,953/-. THE AO RECORDED A FIN DING THAT IN VIEW OF THE AUDITORS REPORT, IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPENDED ANY FRINGE BENEFIT. THEREFORE, HE MADE AD DITION AND LEVIED FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NO T BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF GUJA RAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. AND RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 4.7 IT IS SEEN THAT THE STATUTORY AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED U/S44AB HAVE THEMSELVES QUAN TIFIED THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFITS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE IT EMS AT (A) TO (P) MENTIONED IN SECTION 115WB(2). IT IS PERTINENT TO N OTE THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED ON THE EMPLOYEES OF T HE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, NO PART OF THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN INCURRED ON NON-EMPLOYEES. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE H AS ITSELF DEPOSITED THE FBI INTO GOVERNMENT TREASURY AND NOT IN AN ESCROW ITA NO.2717/AHD/2013 3 ACCOUNT WITH A SCHEDULED BANK. THUS, THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO HAVE CONSIDERED ITSELF TO BE PART OF CATEGORY (1) A S HELD BY THE HIGH COURT I.E., AN ASSESSEE WHO WAS FULLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS. HAVING REGARD TO THE TOTALITY OF THE CI RCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO F BT. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. FURTHER, THE AO HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF TXABLE FRIN GE BENEFITS AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. HENCE VALUATION FO THE FRINGE BENEFITS AT RS.27,07,177/- IS ALSO CONFIRMED. THIS GORUND THUS FAILS. 5. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.115WJ. THIS GROUND IS CONSEQUENTIAL. THE AO I S DIRECTED TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S.115WJ, IF ANY, AFTE R GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 10.1 SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF AY 2007-08 OF THE ABOVE CASE OF GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE OF APPELLANT FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. FOR AY 2009-10 AND THEREFO RE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF MY PREDECESSOR I.E. LD.CIT(A) -I, BARODA IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO FRINGE BENEFI T TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE AO HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF TAXABLE FRI NGE BENEFITS TAX AS WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF AND THERE FORE VALUATION OF FRINGE BENEFIT AT RS.4,04,68,953/- IS CONFIRMED. THUS, THE ABOVE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE DI SMISSED. 6. CONSIDERING THE STAND OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT URJA VIKA S NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY C ONFIRMED THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PUR POSE OF LEVY OF FBT. THE LD.COUNSEL HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ME RIT IN THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/06/2018