Kummathi Rameswar Reddy, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 152/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4924 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: N V BALAJI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NOS.151 & 152/MDS/2016 [IN ITA NOS.209 & 335/MDS/2016] ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2011-12 SHRI KUMMATHI RAMESWAR REDDY, FLAT 6, VISWARETHA APARTMENTS, OLD NO.28, NEW NO.16, 7 TH CROSS STREET, SHASTRI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. PAN: AASPR 9595 D V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI 600 034. (APPLICANT) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI N.V.BALAJI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT # $%! /DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2016 &' $%! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETI TIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE GROUNDS RELATING TO VALUATION OF STOCK APP RECIATION RIGHT WAS NOT DISPOSED OFF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 M.A.NOS.151 & 152/MDS/2016 2. REFERRING TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT WAS PAID TO THE ASSESS EE IN CASH. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERQUISITE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT NEEDS TO BE VALUED AS PER THE APPROVED METHOD OF VALUATION. ON THE QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT WAS PAID IN CASH, IS THERE ANY METHOD FOR VALUING THE CASH. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE CLARIFIED THAT THE RE IS NO METHOD FOR VALUATION OF CASH. 3. WE HEARD SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, THE LEARNED REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT. A SPECIFIC CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IS THAT THE EMPLOYE R PROMOTED AN INCENTIVE PLAN FOR THE EMPLOYEES. THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGH T WAS CLAIMED TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED TO M/S.CO GNIZANT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD. IN INDIA, DURING THE VESTING PERIOD. THE A SSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT WAS VESTED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL THAT THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT WAS PAID IN CASH AT TH E TIME OF ALLOTMENT. NOW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT H AS TO BE VALUED. 4. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT WAS PAID IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS NO ME THOD PROVIDED FOR VALUATION OF THE CASH. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE STOCK 3 M.A.NOS.151 & 152/MDS/2016 APPRECIATION RIGHT VESTED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THERE FORE, IT IS LIABLE FOR TAXATION IN INDIA. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, ( /DATED, THE 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. $ )%*+ ,+'% /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. )/-. /RESPONDENT 3. # 0% ( )/CIT(A) 4. # 0% /CIT, 5. +1 )% /DR 6. 23 4 /GF.