TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Department of Telecommunication and even assuming it is payment to its employees it is not a contribution to an approve superannuation fund. On perusal of the orders of both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), we notice these contentions of the assessee has not been properly addressed to. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that this matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer taking into consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee. Hence, this issue is restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 510/(Del) 2011 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2014 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JJ. Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpreting the provisions of Section 115WB and 115WC of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee filed return declaring value of fringe benefit amounting to ₹ 16,60,66,503/-. The assessment u/s 115WE was completed on 11.12.2008 accepting the value of fringe benefit declared in the return. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened, since according to the Assessing Officer assessee has failed to disclose the contribution to the Superannuation Fund amounting to ₹ 322,74,88,883/-. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the assessment was completed in scrutiny and there was no reason f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is of the appellant to offer the contribution made towards the superannuation fund for FBT. In view of the clear provisions of section 115WB(1)(c) the appellant is liable to pay FBT on the above amount. Keeping in view the findings above I am in agreement with the views of the AO that the amount of ₹ 3227488883/-was liable for FBT. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authority. He also filed brief written submissions, gist of the same reads as follows:- 12.2 Fringe benefits tax is leviable when there is an employer-employee relationship. In the present case, these being employees of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... superannuation fund, the amount cannot be considered as fringe benefit liable for tax. 12.8 Further in the present case the amount has not been credited to any individual employee account. It is a lumpsum payment credited to the account of the Department of Telecommunication and the same does not attract the provisions of section 115W8(1)(c) as has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad vs DCIT in ITA NO.601/Hyd/2012 dated 16.7.2014. 6. The ld. D.R. present was duly heard. 7. We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The relevant provision namely Section 115WB(1) is reproduced is below:- 12.1 The provisions of section 115WB(1) reads as under:- 115WB. (1) For the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
