1983 (8) TMI 86 - AT - Income Tax

Employer's concessional housing loan not taxable perquisite under Income-tax Act

KP. Pednekar. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

KP. Pednekar. Versus Income-Tax Officer. - ITD 006, 483, Issues Involved:1. Whether the housing loan provided by the employer at a concessional interest rate constitutes a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The applicability of past judicial decisions to the current case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the housing loan provided by the employer at a concessional interest rate constitutes a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The primary issue in this case is whether the housing loan provided by the employer at a concessional interest rate of 4% constitutes a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) determined that the assessee received a perquisite because the normal interest rate for such a loan would be 12%, and thus added a sum of Rs. 1,136 to the assessee's salary income as perquisite, acting under rule 3(g) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.The assessee contended that he did not receive any benefit from the loan and that it should not be treated as a perquisite. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision, relying on past decisions such as the case of O.P. Khanna and the Madras High Court decision in Addl. CIT v. Late A.K. Lakshmi.Upon appeal, the Tribunal considered several arguments:- The loan was part of a staff welfare program aimed at helping employees acquire residential accommodation, not as a part of the salary or remuneration.- The loan came with stringent conditions and was not interest-free.- The interest rate of 4% was not significantly lower than rates offered by government and public sector undertakings.The Tribunal reviewed the context in which 'perquisite' is defined in section 17(2) and concluded that the benefit must arise from the service contract and be substantial enough to be considered part of the remuneration. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's representative that the loan, given under separate stringent conditions, did not constitute a perquisite as it was not part of the remuneration for services rendered.2. The applicability of past judicial decisions to the current case:The Tribunal examined past decisions, including those of the Madras High Court in the cases of Late A.K. Lakshmi and C. Kulandaivelu Konar, which were relied upon by the department. The Tribunal noted that these cases were distinguishable on facts, particularly as they involved directors who withdrew company funds without interest and without stringent conditions.The Tribunal also reviewed other Tribunal decisions that had gone against the assessee, noting that they were based on the Madras High Court decisions without distinguishing the facts. In contrast, the Tribunal considered four other decisions (D.D. Khavilkar, M.C. Muthanna, B.C. Shah, and M.H. Lobo) that had decided similar issues in favor of the assessee, noting that these decisions had considered all aspects, including the Madras High Court decisions.The Tribunal found the facts of the current case more similar to those in D.D. Khavilkar and B.C. Shah, where loans were given under stringent conditions at a 4% interest rate, and concluded that these decisions were more applicable.The Tribunal also considered the decision in CIT v. S.S.M. Lingappan, which stated that even unilateral benefits could be perquisites. However, the Tribunal noted that this principle did not affect their conclusion, as the benefit must still arise from the service contract.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not derive any benefit or amenity taxable as a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii). Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,136 to the assessee's income was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.