SCOTT R. BAYMAN Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against an order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 21 -8 -2012 in ITA No. 1617/Del/97. The following question of law was framed for consideration in the present appeal on 30 -7 -2004.

(2.) THE reasoning of the Assessing Officer was that the expenses incurred by the employer was to suit the requirements of employee and that it had nothing to do with the performance of his duties for his office. The order of assessment rejected the contention that perquisite value if any could be calculated only on the basis of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, it was held that if the expenses are only towards repairs or maintenance they could have been taken as expenditure incurred in order to keep the house habitable. The Assessing Officer, thus, concluded that:

(3.) THE assessees appeal to the ITAT was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.12.1996. The Appellate Commissioners reasoning proceeds on the following basis: