Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
422820114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-03-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
15-06-2016
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
10-07-2013
Judgement Text
ITA NO. 4228/ DEL/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 422 8 /DEL/201 3 A.Y. : 200 8 - 0 9 D Y. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), NBCC PLAZA, PUSHP VIHAR, SECTOR - III, NEW DELHI 110 017 VS . M/S MAX NEWYORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, MAX HOUSE, 1, DR. JHA MARG, OKHLA, NEW DELHI 110 020 (PAN: AACCM3201E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. P. DAM. KANUNJNA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. TARANDEEP SINGH, CA DATE OF HEARING : 10 - 0 3 - 201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 1 1 - 0 3 - 201 5 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08 / 5 /20 1 3 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (LTU) , NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 2009 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 . ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT 75% OF THE EXPENSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO WERE EXEMPT U/S. 115WB(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO. 4228/ DEL/ 2013 2 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND OR VARY FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 . THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, NEED NOT TO REPEAT THE SAME HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND ALSO REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4 . DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT 75% OF THE EXPENSES BOOKED IN THE CATEGORY 2 IN RESPECT OF WHICH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACIL ITY OF COMMUTATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS EMPLOYEES FROM HOME TO OFFICE AND BACK AND HENCE WERE EXEMPT UNDER THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE UNDER SECTION 115WB(3). 5 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES BOOKED UNDER THE SECOND CATEGORY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THESE EXPENSES WERE PRIMARILY IN RESPECT OF CAR HIRE FACILITIES FOR THE EMPLOYEES DURING THE WEEKENDS FOR WHICH A SEPARAT E ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE AS A REGULAR SHUTTLE SERVICE FROM HOME TO OFFICE AND BACK. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS DISTINCT FROM THE REGULAR FACILITY FOR COMMUTATION OF THE STAFF FROM HOME TO OFFICE AND VICE VERSA, SEPARATE FACILI TY WAS PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD TO STAY ON IN THE OFFICE BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED OFFICE TIME AND WHO COULD NOT AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF REGULAR SHUTTLE SERVICE FOR THE EMPLOYEES. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ITA NO. 4228/ DEL/ 2013 3 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES THAT WERE IN RESPECT OF COMMUTATION OF STAFF FROM HOME TO OFFICE HOURS OR DURING THE WEEKENDS AND OTHER CAR HIRE FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 12.5.2011 AS UNDER: - PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN INR) A. EXPENDITURE ON CAR HIRE FACILITY PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES DURING WEEKENDS/ AS A REGULAR SHUTTLE SERVICE FROM HOME TO OFFICE AND BACK. 45,26,720/ - B. EXPENDITURE ON CAR HIRE FACILITY PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES DURING OR AFTER THE OFFICE HOURS FOR GOING TO SOME OTHER PLACE OF WORK AND FROM SUCH OTHER PLACE OF WORK TO HOME. 13,99,791/ - TOTAL 59,26,511/ - KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE BREAKUP, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS OBSERVED THAT ALMOST 75% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE WERE PERTAINING TO CABS USED BY THE EMPLOYEES ON THE WEEKENDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUTATION TO OFFICE FROM HOME AND VICE VERSA. SUCH EXPENDITURE IS CLEARLY COVERED UNDER THE EXEM PTION CLAUSE OF SECTION 115WB(3) AND IS BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION DIFFERENT FROM THE FIRST CATEGORY OF EXPENSES. THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS IN THE NATURE OF CONVEYANCE FACILITY TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR OFFICE PURPOSE DURING THE OFFICE HOURS TO SOME OTHER PLAC E OF WORK. ITA NO. 4228/ DEL/ 2013 4 5.1 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT 75% OF THE EXPENSES BOOKED IN THE CATEGORY 2 IN RESPECT OF WHICH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACILITY OF COMMUTATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS EMPLOYEES FROM HOME TO OFFICE AND BACK AND HENCE WERE EXEMPT UNDER THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE UNDER SECTION 115WB(3). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES. THEREFORE, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, NO INTERFERE IS REQUIRED ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 1 1 / 0 3 /20 1 5 . S D / - S D / - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 1 1 / 0 3 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 4228/ DEL/ 2013 5
