These appeals by same assessee relate to asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. following ground, which is common to all appeals, have been raised by Revenue and as such all appeals are being disposed of by common order: "On facts and in circumstances of case, CIT(A) erred in deleting addition make by ITO for value of perquisite in respect of accommodation provided by employer on concessional rent." assessee is employee of M/s Gwalior Rayons, Gwalior. That company owned certain residential quarters. One of such quarters was allotted to assessee on monthly rent of Rs. 50. said quarter consist of our room and kitchen. Its constructed area comes to 1735 sq. ft. assessing officer has held that residential accommodation had been allotted to assessee at concessional rent by employer by virtue of his employment. He, therefore, treated it as perquisite and made addition of Rs. 10,450 each year. fair rental value of accommodation has been computed by him @ 50 paise per sq. ft. Aggrieved by that order, assessee went up in appeal before CIT(A). Disagreeing with view of assessing officer, addition was deleted by him. Aggrieved by that order, Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard ld. Departmental Representative and ld. counsel for assessee. Departmental Representative has supported order of assessing officer and has urged that accommodation in question had been let out to assessee by virtue of his employment and similar accommodation in vicinity can fetch rent at 50 paise per sq. ft. On other hand, ld. counsel for assessee has submitted that accommodation had not been let out to assessee by virtue of any service contract but on basis of availability, that Rent Control Act is applicable to accommodation in question and standard rent has been fixed by rent control authority and as such AO was wrong in holding that accommodation in question had been let out to assessee on concessional rent. In that connection, reliance has also been placed on Diwan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. N. D. M. C. (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC) and Balbir Singh Dr. & Ors. vs. M. C. D. & Ors. (1985) CTR (SC) 208: (1985) 152 ITR 388 (SC). We have considered arguments advanced before us and have looked into record of case. Paper No. 16 of assessee s paper book is that copy of certificate dt. 4th Oct., 1983 issued by employer of assessee. I t states that there is no service condition to provide accommodation to employee, namely, Shri K. N. Singhania by company. It also speaks that flats are allotted to employees as per availability from time to time. That document goes to suggest that assessee had not been inducted as tenant by virtue of any contract of service. Besides this, assessee has filed copy of order dt. 26th Jan., 1963 passed by Rent controller of Gwalior. same is paper No. 18 of e assessee s paper book. It show that assessee had filed application against his employer for fixation of standard rent and Rent Controller had declared standard rent of accommodation in question at Rs. 50 p.m. That order is suggestive of fact that Rent Control Act is applicable to accommodation in question and standard rent in respect thereof had been fixed by competent authority. decisions referred above and relied on by assessee though not directly on point but go long way to support his contention. In those cases, question of perquisite was not involved. However, Hon ble Supreme Court and held that where standard rent is fixed or can be fixed by Rent control Authority then actual value of building can not be more than standard rent. By virtue of contract of tenancy and also declaration of standard rent, employer of assessee is not in position to recover more than what has been declared standard rent, which is equivalent to rent agreed. However, there is no material on record to suggest that accommodation in question had been allotted to assessee in pursuance of any contract of service. On other hand, evidence to contrary has been adduced by assessee. In circumstances we approve of order passed by CIT(A). it would be relevant to mention here that similar matter came up for consideration before Bench of this Tribunal in case of M. P. Rathi and Tribunal had decided matter in assessee s favour. following observation made by Tribunal in its order can be referred with advantage which appears at p. 31 of assessee s paper book: "In as much as we are satisfied that provisions of Rent Control Act were applicable to premises situate in Gwalior Rayon Colony which were partly let out to employees of Gwalior Rayon and partly to outsiders and also on account of fact that in respect of similar accommodation rent controller of Gwalior had fixed standard rent at Rs. 30 p.m. We do not see any justification for assessment of any perquisite in share of accommodation allegedly provided on concessional rent. order of AAC is therefore, disapproved and assessment of Rs. 1,079 is vacated." In view of what has been discussed above, we find no merit in any of appeals and they are consequentially dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. R. N. SINGHANIA