Employer's LIC annuity contribution not taxable as perquisite under s.17(2)(v) where annuity receipts already taxed
ITAT-Ahmedabad held that employer's contribution to LIC for an annuity policy cannot be taxed as a perquisite under s.17(2)(v) for AY 2018-19 where the assessee already offered annuity receipts to tax on accrual/receipt basis. Taxing the contribution would cause impermissible double taxation; Form 16/26AS cannot override statutory provisions. As the employee had no vested or enforceable right and the payment was not on his behalf or credited to him in that year, the AO's addition was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed for the assessee.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Tribunal should condone delay in filing the appeal and admit a time-barred appeal when delay is 162 days.
2. Whether a sum paid by the employer to a life insurance company to purchase an annuity policy in the name of the employee, payable in future years, is taxable in the hands of the employee in the year of payment as a "perquisite" under section 17(2)(v) and as income under section 15.
3. Whether treating such employer payment as taxable in the year of contribution results in impermissible double taxation when annuity instalments are taxed in the years of receipt.
4. Whether reliance on Form 16 and Form 26AS can override substantive statutory conditions for taxability of perquisites where no vested right has accrued to the employee in the relevant year.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Condonation of delay.
Legal framework: Delay in filing appeals may be condoned by the Tribunal on satisfaction of sufficient cause and absence of prejudice to the other side.
Precedent treatment: Established practice permits condonation where facts justify excusable delay and no perceptible prejudice is caused.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted a delay of 162 days but exercised its discretion to condone the delay after due consideration of the facts and on the ground that the delay caused no perceptible prejudice to the other side.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Tribunal exercised its discretionary power to condone in appropriate circumstances; Obiter - none relevant beyond the exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: Delay of 162 days was condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication.
Issue 2 - Taxability of employer's contribution to purchase annuity as perquisite in the year of contribution (section 17(2)(v) and section 15).
Legal framework: Section 17(2)(v) defines "perquisite" to include sums payable by the employer to effect an assurance on the life of the assessee or to effect a contract for an annuity; section 15 governs taxation of salary, requiring that amounts be due, paid or allowed to the employee for chargeability in that year.
Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): The Tribunal relied on settled judicial authority that employer payments for pensions/annuities are taxable in the employee's hands only when the employee acquires a vested right (i.e., amount becomes due or receivable). Earlier decisions treating such payments as perquisites at the stage of employer contribution were considered distinguishable where no vested right accrued in the year.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that mere payment by the employer to an insurer to purchase an annuity in the name of the employee, payable in future years, does not automatically create a present, vested, enforceable right in the employee. For chargeability under section 15 read with section 17(2)(v), a present right or receipt (paid, due or allowed) to the employee is essential. Where the annuity is structured to commence only after a future period (four years in the facts), the employee had no access to, or enforceable entitlement over, the contributed sum in the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal reasoned that a contingent or non-vested future entitlement cannot be taxed in the year of employer contribution; taxability arises when the annuity instalments are actually received or become due to the employee. The Tribunal also rejected the Department's mechanical reliance on Form 16/Form 26AS as determinative of substantive taxability.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - employer contributions to purchase an annuity policy cannot be taxed as a perquisite in the employee's hands in the year of contribution where the employee has not acquired a vested or enforceable right in that year; Obiter - commentary that Form 16/Form 26AS do not override substantive statutory provisions.
Conclusion: The addition of the employer's payment of Rs. 20,00,000 to the employee's income for the assessment year was not sustainable; the contribution was not taxable in that year because no vested right had accrued to the employee.
Issue 3 - Double taxation resulting from taxing the employer contribution in the year of payment and taxing annuity receipts later.
Legal framework: Fundamental tax principles disfavor taxing the same economic benefit twice in different years; statutory chargeability requires an event (receipt, accrual, vesting) that makes the amount income in that year.
Precedent treatment: Judicial authorities establish that amounts are to be taxed when they become due or vested; taxing at contribution stage where there is no vested right risks taxing the same stream of payments again when actually received.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had offered annuity instalments actually received to tax under the head "salary" in the relevant year. Treating the employer's contribution as taxable in the same year would amount to taxing the same underlying economic benefit twice - once at employer contribution and again at receipt of annuity instalments. The Tribunal concluded that such double taxation is impermissible in law and must be avoided by applying the requirement of vesting/receipt for taxability.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - taxing employer contribution in the absence of vesting/receipt would result in double taxation and is not permissible; Obiter - practical observations on employer documentation do not alter substantive liability.
Conclusion: Taxation of the employer's contribution in the assessment year would produce double taxation and is therefore impermissible; the assessment must tax annuity income on accrual/receipt when a vested right exists.
Issue 4 - Evidentiary effect of Form 16 and Form 26AS in determining substantive taxability.
Legal framework: Documents such as Form 16/Form 26AS record employer reporting and tax deduction data but do not by themselves create substantive rights or override statutory conditions for chargeability of income.
Precedent treatment: Courts have held that documentary entries cannot supplant statutory requirements for taxability where those requirements (receipt/vesting) are unmet.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that reliance on Form 16/Form 26AS by the Department is insufficient to establish that an amount was due, paid or allowed to the employee in the assessment year. The substantive legal test under sections 15 and 17 controls; reporting forms cannot be treated as determinative of liability where the legal conditions for inclusion as perquisite are absent.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative reporting cannot override substantive statutory conditions for charging income to tax; Obiter - none beyond affirming primacy of statutory tests over documentary reporting.
Conclusion: Form 16/Form 26AS cannot be relied upon to treat the employer's payment as income of the employee for the year in which no vested right existed.
Final Disposition
Having applied the statutory scheme and controlling judicial principles, the Tribunal concluded that the employer's contribution to purchase an annuity in the employee's name for future payment did not create a vested right in the relevant assessment year; the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 was unsustainable and was deleted, resulting in allowance of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
