Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 607 - ITAT DELHITDS u/s 192 - assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - assessee failure to deduct TDS on the perquisite value of accommodation provided to the employees at the rate of 15 percent of salary - As per Ld. AO, the perquisite on accommodation provided to the employees of the Respondent was to be computed in accordance Section 17(2)(ii) - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that Indian Institute of Science, case [2022 (10) TMI 242 - SC ORDER] squarely applies upon the assessee and mere fact that assessee is a Institution which has come into existence by an Act of Parliament and the various clauses of the IIT Act and the IIT Statues, relied by the Ld. AR, which establish that there is some control of the Central Government, does not elevate the status of assessee of Central Government. Thus we are of considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error to hold that assessee falls in category of Central Government. Rather Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in relying the Guwahati Bench order in case of IIT, (supra), as in that case the Tribunal had not directly dealt with the issue if IIT, falls in status of Central Government for the purpose of Rule 3 but had given benefit to that assessee for not being considered assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act, as there was a bonafide explanation with the department. The Delhi Bench in the case of Superintendent (DDO) versus ITO [2012 (8) TMI 644 - ITAT, DELHI] has taken into consideration judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arun Kumar [2006 (9) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] and held that without first establishing that assessee employer had provided accommodation to the employees at concessional rates, the assessing officer cannot straightaway invoke Rule 3 for computing value of the perquisite and treat assessee in default in deducting tax at source on said value. Therefore, we are of the considered view that though Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in holding that assessee falls in status of Central Government for the purpose of Section 17(2) of the Act, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) still deserves to be upheld as Ld. AO has fallen in error by straightaway invoking Rule 3 for computing value of the perquisite and treat assessee in default in deducting tax at source on said value, without first recording a finding as to whether there is 'concession' and the case is covered by Section 17 (2) (ii) of the Act. Decided against revenue.
|