Cit vs Adam Robert John Mynott
2012 Latest Caselaw 4601 Del

$~92
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Dated of decision: 3rd August, 2012
+       ITA 1990/2010

        CIT                                                       .....Appellant
                                Through:     Ms. Rashmi       Chopra, Sr. Standing
                                             Counsel.

                       versus

        ADAM ROBERT JOHN MYNOTT                     ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pravesh Sharma and Ms. Radhika Narang, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.: (OPEN COURT)

1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟ for short) dated 08.02.2010 whereby its appeal, directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order was dismissed.

2. The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the tax paid on the facility of rent free accommodation, by the employer, to the extent i.e. the sum of `1,05,765/-, is itself taxable or is it exempt. The CIT (Appeals) by the order impugned before the Tribunal held as follows: -

"5. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and the assessment order. The only issue of dispute in this case is that out of the tax borne by the employer on monetary as well as non monetary benefits, the assessee claimed a sum of `1,05,765/- as exempt stating that this relates to the non monetary benefits and therefore, was exempt u/s 10(10CC) of the I.T. Act and should not be subjected to

grossing up whereas the AO has stated in his assessment order that the benefit (rent free accommodation), considered by the assessee as non- monetary is a monetary benefit and therefore, tax paid by the employer in respect of this benefit is not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10CC) and is to be grossed up."

3. This Court notices that the combined reading of Rule 3 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 excludes the tax components borne in respect of the perquisite and rent free accommodation paid by the employer and this position appears to have been considered and benefit given by this Court in CIT v. Telsuo Mitera, ITA No.323/2010 and other connected cases decided on 17.05.2012.

4. In view of the above discussion, the Revenue‟s appeal has to fail. The same is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

R.V.EASWAR, J AUGUST 03, 2012 hs