Tribunal remands case for verifying Fringe Benefit Tax on concessional electricity supply to employees

The tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding the addition of expenses as Fringe Benefit Tax for supplying electricity at concessional rates to employees. The assessee must provide evidence that the concessional supply of electricity was treated as a perquisite and that due taxes were deducted. Failure to do so may result in the Assessing Officer making the addition as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, stressing the importance of proper documentation and compliance with tax laws.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of expenses amounting to Rs. 7,36,09,000/- as Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) for supplying electricity at concessional rates to employees.
2. The Assessing Officer's failure to consider the appellant's submissions properly.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 not giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee company to be heard.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Sustaining the Addition of Expenses as FBT:
The primary issue is whether the supply of electricity at concessional rates to employees should be treated as a fringe benefit taxable in the hands of the employer or as a perquisite taxable in the hands of the employee. The assessee argued that the concessional supply of electricity is a perquisite and should be taxed in the hands of the employees, thereby falling outside the purview of FBT. The authorities, however, sustained the addition on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the benefit was taxed in the hands of the employees. The tribunal referred to Section 115WB and Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act to clarify that perquisites taxed in the hands of employees are excluded from FBT. It was concluded that the supply of electricity at concessional rates is indeed a perquisite, but the assessee must furnish evidence of TDS on such perquisite.

2. Assessing Officer's Consideration of Submissions:
The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the submissions made. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on the assessee's failure to provide material evidence supporting that the perquisite was taxed in the hands of the employees. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of proper documentation and evidence to substantiate claims regarding tax treatment.

3. Opportunity to be Heard:
The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The tribunal acknowledged this contention but emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to furnish the necessary evidence during the proceedings. The tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present the required evidence.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The assessee is required to provide evidence that the concessional supply of electricity was treated as a perquisite and that due taxes were deducted. If the assessee fails to do so, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to make the addition as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and compliance with tax laws.

---