TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide considerations. Needless to say a finding in the quantum proceedings that a particular expenditure is susceptible to provisions of FBT cannot automatically be adopted for the purposes of s.271(1)(d). The assessee has successfully discharged the initial onus placed on it for rebut5ting presumption against it. Therefore, we are unable to see any error in the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under s.271(1)(d) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.611/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri R.I. Patel, CIT-DR For The Respondent : Shri Jigar M.Patel, AR ORDER PER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see in the quantum proceedings. However, it was simultaneously pointed out that the Hon ble Gujarat high Court in Tax Appeal No.888/2015 order dated 17/03/2017 has reversed the relief granted by the ITAT. Consequently, the quantum additions towards value of fringe benefit have been confirmed. It was submitted that notwithstanding the affirmation of quantum additions by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, it may be noticed that the assessee had provided true and full disclosure of facts and its supporting legal contentions as per notes forming part of its fringe benefits tax return for Ay 2006-07. Thus, there was no suppression of any particulars of facts per se . Consequently, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - was made to the fringe benefit; CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition and therefore penalty was being levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit. 3.3. The contentions of the Id. A.R. are that A.O. did not find out even a single inaccurate particular; appellant had taken a categorical stand in the notes forming part of its return that the expenditure in dispute was not incurred on the employees and therefore it did not attract levy of fringe benefit tax; in view of the decisions relied on, any expenditure incurred by an employer in the course of business or profession, which is not in consideration for employment cannot be considered as fringe benefit; the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l-settled that an executive instruction/circular cannot create any additional liability on the assessee. Secondly it is also to be appreciated that the stand of the Revenue is also not in consonance with the legislative intent. The import and intent of introducing Chapter XL1-H was to tax such benefits which are collectively enjoyed by the employees and cannot be attributed to any individual employee. Such benefits escape taxation as perquisite in the hands of the individual employees as they are not attributable to any individual employee. Therefore, such benefits were sought to be taxed in the hands of the concerned employer. Though the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister may not be a decisive test, so however, it is indeed a relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had concealed fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of fringe benefits within the meaning of Section 271(d). Mere rejection of a claim does not attract penal provisions. I am of the considered view that levy of penalty is not in accordance with law. Impugned penalty order is cancelled. These grounds of appeal are allowed. 5.2. We straightway notice the ostensible fact that the assessee has come out with complete disclosure of disputed items of expenditure not included for the purpose of determination of fringe benefits tax liability in the return of income. Thus, the bonafides of the action of the assessee cannot be tainted with any doubt. Noticeably, the assessee secured substantial relief from the Coordinate Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
