9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see company. In this regard, as per the assessee, the lower authorities have ignored the provisions of section 115WA of the Act which, according to the appellant, confines the chargeability of FBT in respect of fringe benefits provided or deemed to have been provided to employee or employees alone. 4. In this connection, the point made out by the assessee is that, for instance, expenditure on travelling of non-employees, i.e. customers/outsiders has also been considered as a deemed fringe benefit in terms of section 115WB(2) of the Act, which is wrong. The plea of the assessee is that deeming provision of sub-section (2) of section 115WB would operate only if the expenditure specified therein is incurred inconsideration for employment or in other words, it is incurred in connection with the employees of the assessee, and not otherwise. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the Revenue and, which is supported by the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), is that section 115WB(2) lays down 16 items of expenditure which are deemed fringe benefits and that if any of such expenses is incurred by an assessee, the same is liable to FBT and the provision does not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure has been incurred 4 on account of consideration for employment so as to attract levy of FBT contemplated in section 115WA(1) of the Act. 8. To appreciate the legal position, we may again refer to the meaning of the expression "Fringe benefits", as contained in section 115WB(1) of the Act. As noted earlier, Sub-section (1) of section 115WB contains the expression "means any consideration for employment". The presence of the aforesaid expression means that the 'fringe benefits' covered in section 115WB(1) are those which are in consideration for employment. Now, section 115WB(2) contains 'fringe benefits' which are deemed to have been provided by the employer to the employees. Section 115WB(2) does not contain the expression ".... means any consideration for employment ..." as contained in sub-section (1) of section 115WB, and therefore, it is sought to be canvassed by the Revenue that any payment made by an assessee for the purposes contained in Clauses (A) to (Q) of sub-section (2) of section 115WB shall result in 'fringe benefits' deemed to have been provided by the employer to his employees. In other words, as per the Revenue the expenses listed in Section 115WB(2) need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislative intent. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in para 3.1 of the impugned order has reproduced the relevant extract of the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister in the Parliament while introducing the relevant provisions. From the same, it can be clearly observed that the import and intent of introducing Chapter XII-H was to tax such benefits which are 6 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 relevant and contemporaneous exposition of the legislative intent and can be relied upon, as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese v. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). Considered in that light too, we find that the interpretation sought to be made out by the Revenue with regard to the meaning of the expression 'fringe benefits' for the purposes of section 115WB(2) of the Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered for levy of FBT and that in the present case, such expenditure is of the nature covered by such Explanation to section 115WB(2)(E) of the Act. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has observed that the impugned expenditure is not on account of a statutory obligation and, therefore, the same does not fall within the exceptions provided in the Explanation to section 115WB(2)(E) of the Act. On this aspect, we find no cogent controversion on the part of the assessee and accordingly the action of the Commissioner of 8 Income-tax (Appeals) on the basis of reasons contained therein is hereby affirmed. Thus, on this Ground, the assessee fails. 15. Ground No. (5) is with regard to the charging of FBT on the reimbursement of medical expenses to the extent of Rs 15,000/-. The contention of the assessee is that reimbursement of medical expenses to the extent of Rs 15,000/- is exempt in the hands of the employee and to the extent of such exempted allowance, it was also not liable to be considered for FBT in the hands of employer. In this connection, we find that our co-ordinate Benches, namely, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Godrej Properties Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
