9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2006 declaring value of Fringe Benefit of Rs. 2,00,64,157/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 115WB of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2008 and the total Fringe Benefit value was assessed at Rs. 2,49,41,619/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 03.09.2010 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and the concise grounds of appeal raised reads as under. 1. In law and in the facts and in circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,61,668/- even though they have not been incurred f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding as under:- 2.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order ad appellant's submission. It is not in dispute that appellant is covered by the provisions of Fringe Benefit Tax. It is levied in respect of Fringe benefit provided or deemed to have been provided by an employer to his employees. As per Section 115WB(2) Fringe Benefit is deemed to have been provided by the employer to his employees if employer has incurred any expenses or made any payment for the purposes mentioned in clause-A to clause-Q. The value of the Fringe Benefit is to be worked out by applying a percentage given in Section 115WC. These two sections do not gives any discr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in respect of expenses not incurred for the purpose of employees' benefit, therefore, I do not find any legal support for the appellant's contention. In view of this, the addition to the value of Fringe Benefit made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. In the final result, appeal is dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, at the outset the ld. A.R. submitted that the basic condition for levy of FBT is that the expenses should be incurred on the employees and it cannot be invoked on expenses which are incurred on the nonemployees and are for business purpose. He further submitted that on identical facts in the case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ITA No. 3086, 3087 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BT" could not be invoked in respect of the expenses which were not incurred on employees or their family members. The Tribunal in this case has referred to the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, Pune and Bangalore, which have similarly held that the "FBT" could not be invoked on expenses which were not incurred on the employees or their family members. However, we find that there is no clear cut finding recorded by the AO or the CIT(A) in their order that whether the addition made were relating to the expenditure in relation to non-employees and for the business purpose of the assessee. The claim of the assessee was that the expenses were not related to its employees and were incurred only in relation to non-employee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
