INCOME TAX OFFICER v. G.D. KASERA
[Citation -1986-LL-0410-6]

Citation 1986-LL-0410-6
Appellant Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Respondent Name G.D. KASERA
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/04/1986
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags concessional rent
Bot Summary: One flat each was given by the said company to the assessee on monthly rent. The assessing officer has held that the rent paid by the assessees is inadequate in comparison to rent prevailing in the locality. The ITO made an addition of Rs. 10,410 in the case of each assessee each year. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee went up in appeal before the CIT(A), who accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the addition. The departmental representative has supported the orders of the assessing officer and has urged that the rent prevailing in the locality is much higher than the rent which is being charged by M/s Gwalior Rayons from the assessees. On the other hand, ld, counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tenancy has nothing to do with the contract o f employment and the accommodation had been let out to the assessees subject to availability. No material has been brought on record which may indicate that the accommodation was let out to the assessees in pursuance of the contract of service.


O.P. JAIN, J.M. Identical questions are involved in these appeals and as such they are being disposed of by common order. G.D. Kasera and Shri Thomas Koshy are employees of Gwalior Rayons, Gwalior which owns certain residential flats. One flat each was given by said company to assessee on monthly rent. assessing officer has held that rent paid by assessees is inadequate in comparison to rent prevailing in locality. He, therefore, held that employer has let out his premises to its employees on concessional rent. ITO, therefore, made addition of Rs. 10,410 in case of each assessee each year. Aggrieved by order of assessing officer assessee went up in appeal before CIT(A), who accepted assessee's contention and deleted addition. Aggrieved by his order, Revenue has come up in appeal. We have heard both sides. departmental representative has supported orders of assessing officer and has urged that rent prevailing in locality is much higher than rent which is being charged by M/s Gwalior Rayons from assessees. He has, therefore, urged that accommodation has been let out to assessees on concessional rent because they happen to be employees of said company. According to him, ITO had rightly made addition on account of perquisites. On other hand, ld, counsel for assessee has submitted that tenancy has nothing to do with contract o f employment and accommodation had been let out to assessees subject to availability. We have considered arguments advanced before us. No material has been brought on record which may indicate that accommodation was let out to assessees in pursuance of contract of service. It appears, therefore, to b e case of tenancy in ordinary courses. This point also came up for our consideration in group of cases of ITO vs. Shri K.N. Singhania (1986) 25 TTJ (Del) 301 and ITO vs. B.L. Tibrewal (1986) 25 TTJ (Del) 559 who also happens to be employees of M/s Gwalior Rayons Company. Their appeals bearing nos. 4975 to 4986/Del/84 and 4981 to 4982/Del/84 are being disposed of by us today wherein we have discussed relevant law and various aspects involved in case and it would be futile to repeat those reasons. While deciding those aspects appeals, we of have approved of order passed by CIT(A). For reasons stated above, we find no merit in appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. G.D. KASERA
Report Error