TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing via video conferencing, despite the appellant's specific request. 2. The Learned NFAC erred in disposing of the appeal without recognizing that the same income was already offered for taxation, resulting in double taxation. 3. The actions of the Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disregard established legal principles, judicial precedents and constitutional tenets. 4. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, or delete any grounds before or at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asking the assessee to explain why the said amounts should not be brought to tax in his hands as his taxable income. In response, the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was not received by him but was paid directly by his employer to LIC for a deferred annuity, which would commence after four years, and therefore no vested right accrued to him during the relevant year. It was also submitted that the tax of Rs. 4,50,000/- paid by the employer was a non-monetary perquisite exempt under section 10(10CC) of the Act. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. L.W. Russel and other judicial precedents. 5. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the ground challenging jurisdiction by the assessee. 7. On the issue of taxability of Rs. 15,00,000/- paid to LIC, the CIT(Appeals) held that section 17(2)(v) of the Act clearly includes within the definition of perquisite any sum payable by the employer to effect a contract for annuity. The CIT(Appeals), relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CIT v. J.G. Keshwani [1993] 202 ITR 391, held that the amount paid by the employer for purchase of annuity policy was taxable as salary in the hands of the employee irrespective of whether the benefit accrued in the year or not. The CIT(Appeals) distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....214 ITD 197, which has considered identical facts and held that employer's contribution to LIC for deferred annuity cannot be taxed as perquisite in the year of contribution in absence of a vested right. It was thus prayed that the addition sustained by the CIT(Appeals) be deleted. 11. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue for our consideration is whether the amount paid by the employer to LIC for purchase of an annuity policy in favour of the assessee, payable in future, can be taxed as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee in the relevant assess....