2017 (10) TMI 1317 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs reassessment based on employee accommodation value estimate.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, directing a reassessment by the Assessing Officer based on the bona fide ... Computing the perquisite value of the accommodation provided by the assessee - Held that:- It is not a fresh issue raised by the assessee but it is only a plea in respect of the same subject matter and issue of deduction of TDS in respect of the accommodation provided to the employees. See IISC Vs. DCIT [2015 (2) TMI 1272 - ITAT BANGALORE]. Therefore in the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Tribunal, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer to examine the matter in the light of the decisions as relied upon by the assessee as well as by the department. Issues:1. Whether the assessee, a statutory body under the Central Silk Board Act, is liable to be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for not deducting TDS on house accommodation provided to its employees.2. Whether the perquisite value of the accommodation provided by the assessee to its employees should be computed as per Sl.No.1 or Sl.No.2 of Table 1 of Rule 3 of the IT Rules.3. Whether the assessee's valuation of the perquisite based on bona fide estimate exempts it from being held as an assessee in default.Analysis:1. The assessee, a statutory body under the Central Silk Board Act, was held as an assessee in default by the Assessing Officer for not deducting TDS on house accommodation provided to its employees. The Assessing Officer determined the tax liability under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, a decision upheld by the CIT (Appeals).2. The dispute arose regarding the computation of the perquisite value of the accommodation. The assessee argued that it should be valued as per Sl.No.1 of Table 1 of Rule 3, considering its status as a body under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the assessee should fall under Sl.No.2 category due to its financial and administrative autonomy.3. The Tribunal referred to precedents, including a decision related to the Central Food Technology Research Institute, to address the perquisite valuation issue. While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicability of Sl.No.2, it directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's valuation based on bona fide estimate, citing previous decisions in favor of such assessments.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a reassessment by the Assessing Officer in light of the bona fide estimate made by the assessee regarding the perquisite value. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors and legal precedents in tax liability cases involving statutory bodies like the assessee.