DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI V. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6516/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0380 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PUNEET BOTHRA LD ARS

Judgement Text

ITA.NO.6516/MUM/2016 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM I.T.A. NO.6516/MUM/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) ROOM NO.902 PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, 9 TH FLOOR OLD CGO BUILDING ANNEXE MUMBAI-400 020 VS. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED CENTURY BHAVAN DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI,MUMBAI-400 025 PAN/GIR NO. AAACH-1201-R ( APPELLANT ) : ( !' RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MAHAVEER JAIN & PUNEET BOTHRA, LD. ARS REVENUE BY : MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, LD. SR. DR #$ DATE OF HEARING : 12/09/2018 %&'$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2007-08 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-13 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-13/ADDL.CIT-7(1)/23/2015-16 DATED ITA.NO.6516/MUM/2016 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 2 31/08/2016 QUA CERTAIN RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATT ER OF COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT [FB]. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF FRINGE BENEFIT U/S 115WD (1) SHOWING VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT [FB] AT RS.28.06 CRORES WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 115WE(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, AT T HE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NOTE, SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE AS OFFERED TO FBT, WERE NOT AT ALL CHARGEABLE TO FBT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY LD. AO BY RELYING UPON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 08/2005 DATED 29/08/2005. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE STAND OF L D. AO WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/08/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES STAND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY R ELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S ISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE TITLED AS GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT [ITA NOS. 4910, 491 1, 5632/MUM/2011 FOR AYS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 DATED 19/0 6/2013]. AGGRIEVED AS AFORESAID, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER A PPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, ALTHOUGH PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STAND OF LD. AO BUT COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE F ACTUAL MATRIX OF ASSESSEES CASE WITH THAT OF ITS SISTER CONCERN AND ALSO COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY JUDGMENT TO NEGATE THE FINDI NGS GIVEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN. PER CONTRA, LD. AUHTORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], SHRI MAHAVEER JAIN, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STOOD SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY ITA.NO.6516/MUM/2016 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 3 THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE, THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) REQUIRED NO INTERFERENCE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES AND THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEES SISTER CONCERN. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE, IN ITS GROUNDS O F APPEAL, HAS AGITATED THE RELIEF PROVIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF FOL LOWING HEAD OF EXPENDITURE:- WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE REV ENUE IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS ALREADY BE EN DEALT WITH BY THIS TRIBUNAL AS CITED ABOVE. RELYING UPON THE SAME, LD. CIT(A) HAS PROVIDED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE IS NEITHER ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTUAL MATRIX NOR BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY JUDGMENT SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THEREF ORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (# MUMBAI; DATED 19.09.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT (RS.) 1. MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL COLONY FOR EMPLOYEES 3,35,89,497/- 2. INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY EMPLOYER 28,54,059/- 3. SALARIES TO DOCTORS/HOSPITAL STAFF/TEACHERS 2,87 ,50,914/- 4. SALARIES OF PILOTS AND DRIVERS 40,55,738/- 5. ACCOMMODATION (NOT BEING GUEST HOUSE) 79,57,269/ - ITA.NO.6516/MUM/2016 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 4 ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ) / CIT CONCERNED 5. *+!$, , ' (# / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +-./# GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, # '$% (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) (# / ITAT, MUMBAI