Delhi High Court
Huges Services (Fe) Pte Ltd. & Ors. vs Asstt. Cit on 6 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2004) 91 TTJ Del 300
ORDER
Phool Singh, J.M.
These appeals, preferred by M/s Huges Service Far East (P) Ltd. as representative assessed of different foreign technicians, are directed against separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals). The assessment year involved in all the cases is 1993-94. Since common issues are involved for adjudication, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.
2. First ground raised and common in all the appeals reads as under :
2. First ground raised and common in all the appeals reads as under :
"That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in maintaining the addition made by the Income Tax Officer as income from other sources on account of boarding,"
3. Learned counsel for the assessed at the very outset contended that the issue in question is squarely covered in favor of assessed by Special Bench decision of Tribunal in the case of Saipem Spa v. Income Tax Officer (2001) 76 ITD 101 (Del) (SB) wherein it has been held that if the accommodation provided was ex necessiate to discharge the duty assigned, it could not be termed as perquisite and no addition was warranted on this count. Learned departmental Representative was fair enough to concede the aforesaid factual position. He, however, submitted that revenue has not given up its stand. Respectfully following the aforesaid order of Special Bench of the Tribunal, orders of authorities below on the issue in question are set aside and the addition made and sustained on account of perquisite value of boarding is directed to be deleted.
3. Learned counsel for the assessed at the very outset contended that the issue in question is squarely covered in favor of assessed by Special Bench decision of Tribunal in the case of Saipem Spa v. Income Tax Officer (2001) 76 ITD 101 (Del) (SB) wherein it has been held that if the accommodation provided was ex necessiate to discharge the duty assigned, it could not be termed as perquisite and no addition was warranted on this count. Learned departmental Representative was fair enough to concede the aforesaid factual position. He, however, submitted that revenue has not given up its stand. Respectfully following the aforesaid order of Special Bench of the Tribunal, orders of authorities below on the issue in question are set aside and the addition made and sustained on account of perquisite value of boarding is directed to be deleted.
4. Next common ground raised in ITA Nos. 1927, 1944, 1945 and 1946/Del/1997 reads as under :
4. Next common ground raised in ITA Nos. 1927, 1944, 1945 and 1946/Del/1997 reads as under :
"That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in maintaining the order of Income Tax Officer regarding multiple grossing up of tax perquisite."
5. Learned counsel at the very outset contended that this issue also stands squarely covered in favor of assessed by earlier orders of Tribunals. Learned departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. I have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. I find that under similar circumstances it has consistently been held by the Tribunal that there was no scope for grossing up. Reference may be made of the following orders of Tribunal:
5. Learned counsel at the very outset contended that this issue also stands squarely covered in favor of assessed by earlier orders of Tribunals. Learned departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. I have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. I find that under similar circumstances it has consistently been held by the Tribunal that there was no scope for grossing up. Reference may be made of the following orders of Tribunal:
(a) ONGC as agent of Hyundai Heavy Indus. v. Dy. CIT (ITA No. 1803/Del/1992, for assessment year 1988-89, dated 24-1-1997);
(b) Dy. CIT v. ONGC as agent of GGG, Jodhpur (ITA Nos. 1780 to 1789/Del/1991, assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89, dated 5-12-1997);
(c) ONGC as agent of Pol Services, Poland v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (ITA Nos. 5789/Del/1190 & Ors., dated 30-5-1998);
(d) ONGC as agent of Pol Service, Poland v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (ITA Nos. 5789 to 5771/Del/1990, dated 12-5-1997);
(e) McDermott International Inc. v. Dy. CIT (ITA Nos. 3265/Del/1989 & 4148 to 4150/Del/1990, for assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87, dated 21-2-1994).
6. Respectfully following the aforesaid orders of Tribunal, I hold that there was no scope of grossing up in the case of assesseds. Ground is allowed accordingly.
6. Respectfully following the aforesaid orders of Tribunal, I hold that there was no scope of grossing up in the case of assesseds. Ground is allowed accordingly.
7. The result is that all the appeals stand allowed.
7. The result is that all the appeals stand allowed.
