AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A), Pune-12 relating to assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised by the respective assessees in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First we take up ITA No.979/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2016-17 in the case of Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and director in the company BSA Corporation. He filed his original return of income on 09.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 49,74,670/-. A survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was conducted in the case of BSA Corporation and its associate entities on 05.02.2020. Subsequently the case was transferred to ACIT, Central Circle 2(4), Pune in view of CBDT Notification dated 18.09.2020. The Assessing Officer reopened the case u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2021 after recording reasons and after taking due approval from the higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee in response to the said notice uploaded the return of income on 16.08.2021 showing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. He observed from the return filed by the assessee that in schedule 'S' related to income from salary the assessee has shown salary income received from M/s. BSA Corporation. In the schedule under the head 'Income from salary', there is a para No.4 perquisite value which is shown as Nil. Since the assessee had admitted that he was staying in the company guest house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs. 5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 54,70,960/-. 6. Similar additions on account of perquisite value have been made by the Assessing Officer for other years, the details of which are as under: Sr No ITA No. Amount (Rs.) 1 980/PUN/2025 5,94,000 2 1005/PUN/2025 5,94,000 3 1004/PUN/2025 11,88,000 7. In case of other assessees the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of perquisite value. The details of which are as under: 1 976....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven to the appellant between passing of the order disposing of the objections and the final assessment order. Also, it is seen from the facts of the case that it was the appellant who has delayed in filing the response at many stages. The appellant was given 30 days to file the return of income. However, he took around 5 months to upload the return. The appellant asked for the reasons after about 8 months of the issue of the notice u/s 148. Thus; at many stages it was the appellant who took extra time and the AO provided the same. 3.4 In view of the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that reasonable opportunity was given by the AO to the appellant at every stage and it cannot be said that the appellant was precluded from seeking any remedy against the order disposing of the objections due to any action of the AO. In view of the above, the ground no 1 raised by the appellant is hereby rejected. 10. So far as the addition on merit is concerned, he dismissed the same by observing as under: Findings and Decision of the Appellate Authority 4.2 In these grounds, the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 5,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted fact that no perquisite value towards rent free accommodation has been added in the salary of the appellant who happens to be director of the said company. The appellant has not brought anything on record to prove that these facts are incorrect. 4.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was specifically asked to provide details of ownership of immovable properties as well as guest houses but he failed to provide the same. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant and his other family members are using the properties of M/s BSA Corporation as rent free accommodation. They are using these properties as their residence. The argument of the appellant that these properties are used exclusively for the business purpose of the company does not change the fact that these are used as rent free accommodation by the appellant. 4.6 From the above discussion, it emerges that it is an undisputed fact that the properties of M/s BSA Corporation Limited were being used as residence by the appellant, although the properties are shown as guest houses in the books of the company. It is also not under dispute that no perquisite value towards rent free accom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er on account of perquisite for the alleged use of the Amanora Property and Castle Royale Property of the company BSA Corporation Ltd by the appellant who happens to be the Director of the said company on the basis of merely the statement given by him u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 during survey in duress without any corroborative evidence that such assets had been used by the appellant for his personal purpose. The appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said addition being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed and the addition made by the AO be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-12, Pune erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant filed for AY 2016-17 contesting the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 5,94,000/- in the assessment order on account of perquisite for the alleged use of the Amanora Property and Castle Royale Property of the company BSA Corporation Ltd by the appellant who happens to be the Director of the said company on the basis of merely the statement given by him u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 during survey w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same when required while carrying out the business activity of the said company in his capacity as Director and therefore there was no element of personal use of the properties and hence question of charging of perquisites in this regard did not arise as allegedly held by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said addition being arbitrary, illegal and bad in law be quashed and the addition made by the AO be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, amend, withdraw, modify, change or substitute any ground or grounds of appeal or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal during or before the hearing of the appeal. 12. Ground No.1 by the assessee relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. 13. After hearing both sides, we find the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed in the Return of income filed for AY 2016-17, even if in the statement given by the assessee wherein he had stated that 15% of salary to be treated as perquisite for the use of guest house which in fact had been used for the business purpose of the company wherein the assessee was a Director. Therefore, based on merely the statement given by the assessee Shri Balasheb V. Kadam u/s. 131 of the Act during survey stating that perquisite in his hand should be treated of Rs. 5,94,000/- as additional income, the assessee was not obliged to offer such additional income in the return of income filed, as no such income remained to be offered in the said return ....." 18. He accordingly submitted that merely because the director under misconception and without going through the salary statement and books of account of the company has erroneously admitted that 15% of the salary be treated as perquisite, the same should not be held against the assessee. He submitted that once the perquisite value has already been added in the salary income and merely because in the return form such perquisite value erroneously remained to be mentioned and has been stated as nil, the same cannot be a gr....