TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is not chargeable to tax - No fresh material is brought by the Revenue on record but the assessment has been reopened on the basis of return of income and the documents submitted alongwith the return of income - Following the decision in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Versus ORIENT CRAFT LTD. [2013 (1) TMI 177 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI Versus Shri Atul Kumar Swami [2014 (3) TMI 759 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - reopening of assessment is not valid – Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Held that:- In the computation of income itself, the assessee has disclosed all the relevant facts - he has given the reason why the perquisite value of such rent free accommodation is not chargeable - Merely be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 536 and CIT Vs. Atul Kumar Swami [2014] 362 ITR 693. He stated that the assessee is an employee with ITC. In the year under consideration, the assessee had been provided with the accommodation by the employer viz., ITC. In the return of income, the assessee had given a note why the value of rent from the accommodation is not includible in the assessee s income as a perquisite. That the returns of the year under consideration have been accepted under Section 143(1). Thereafter, on the basis of same return of income, the assessments have been reopened under Section 147. In this regard, he referred to the copy of rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , some discrepancy has been observed in the return. As per certificate of the employer (tagged as B ), the assessee has received the following salary and perquisite :- Total taxable income 19,28,050/- Add : Taxable perquisites LTC 170000 Furniture Loan 192 Taxable Furniture 13888 VRFQ 419616 6,36,096/- Gross Taxable Salary 25,31,750/- However, the assessee has shown total income from salary as ₹ 20,93,655/- with the note that value of rent free accommodation not including in the perks as being c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Craft Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, that the reasons disclosed that the Assessing Officer reached the belief that there was escapement of income on going through the return of income filed by the assessee after he accepted the return under section 143(1) without scrutiny, and nothing more. This was nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did confirm the apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation of the words reason to believe vis-a-vis an intimation issued under section 143(1) could cause to the tax regime. There was nothing in the reasons recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts filed alongwith the return of income. In the case of Atul Kumar Swami (supra), the assessee had given the note alongwith the return of income that the amount received under a non-compete agreement is not chargeable to tax. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) and was reopened without any fresh material. Identical is the situation in the case of the assessee. The assessee had also given the note in the computation of income pointing out why the perquisites from the rent free accommodation is not chargeable to tax. No fresh material is brought by the Revenue on record but the assessment has been reopened on the basis of return of income and the documents submitted alongwith the return of income. Therefore, in view of both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000/- out of such expenses which were not vouched and verifiable. On appeal, learned CIT(A) reduced the addition to ₹ 20,000/-. The assessee, vide ground No.(H), is in appeal against the addition of ₹ 20,000/- sustained by the CIT(A). 14. At the time of hearing before us, no specific argument is advanced on this point and therefore, this ground of appeal is treated as not pressed and rejected as such. 15. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.3051/Del/2010 is dismissed. ITA No.1193/Del/2013 :- 16. The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is against the levy of penalty of 1,78,678/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer had levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
