TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered. 3. In ground No. A, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer treating the assessee default under section 201(1) and levying Rs. 3,82,993 being the amount of short deduction of tax at source on reimbursement of conveyance allowance to the employees. 4. Briefly stated facts in this regard are that the Assessing Officer, during the course of scrutinizing the annual return relating to TDS under section 192, observed that the assessee had granted exemption to its employees under section 10(14) of the Act in respect of conveyance allowance given to them which ranged from Rs. 250 per month and Rs. 2,000 per month depending upon the status and designation of the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a case of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the employees for commuting between residence to office and back though the same was given in the form of fixed allowance based upon the declaration given by the employees. The ceilings of such allowance was also fixed based upon the status and designation of the employees and having regard to the actual expenditure to be incurred by them according to the mode of conveyance likely to be used by them. The amount of allowance could not held as excessive or unreasonable so as to construe the same as salary given in the garb of reimbursement of expenses. The learned counsel further contended that both the Revenue Authorities held that the conveyance allowance given by the employer for the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite, hence, on the same logic the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by employees on use of transport from their residence to other places of work and back could not be regarded as a perquisite. The learned counsel also contended that the employees were held as not liable to be taxed on the amounts reimbursed to them in their individual assessments and where the assessment of concerned employees had been completed, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction under section 201 of the Act to demand further tax from employer and in this regard he placed reliance on the following :- 1.CIT v. Madhya Pradesh State Co-op. Development Bank Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 230 (MP) 2.CIT v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1983] 140 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn. Class-I Officers (Bombay) Association v. LIC of India [1998] 229 ITR 510 and the decision of Divisional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 58 ITD 104 (Hyd.) in support of his contentions. If we look at the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of LIC of India (supra), it is noted that in that case the Hon'ble Court was seized with the case where the conveyance allowance was not a reimbursement of expenditure incurred but it was given in terms of service rules irrespective of the fact where the employee was on duty or not and irrespective of distance....