Perquisite valuation of employee accommodation remanded for fresh examination of bona fide estimate and Rule 3 treatment.

Perquisite valuation of unfurnished accommodation provided by an autonomous statutory body was treated as falling within the Rule 3 framework for computation, following an earlier Tribunal view on similar facts. However, the authorities had not examined the alternative plea that the perquisite was valued on a bona fide estimate, and that issue required fresh consideration. The matter was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the valuation method and the assessee's plea, and no final liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was determined on the merits in this order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the perquisite value of unfurnished accommodation provided by an autonomous statutory body to its employees was required to be computed under Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and whether the assessee could be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The accommodation valuation issue was found to be covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision on similar facts, holding that such a body could fall within the category attracting Sl. No. 2 of Table 1 of Rule 3 for perquisite computation. At the same time, the authorities below had not examined the assessee's alternative plea that the perquisite had been valued on a bona fide estimate, and that aspect required consideration in the light of the cited decisions.

Conclusion: The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the assessee's plea on bona fide estimate and the applicable perquisite valuation method; the assessee was not finally held liable under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) on merits in this order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the issue was remitted for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the valuation of employee accommodation perquisites and the assessee's bona fide estimation are not fully examined, the matter may be remanded for fresh adjudication notwithstanding reliance on prior precedent on the applicable Rule 3 category.

---