COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the instance of the Revenue, the income tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ("the Tribunal" for short) has referred u/s 256(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") the following question for our opinion:

(2.) Since, in our opinion, answer to the question, stands concluded by the decision of this Court, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts and examine the issue raised all over again.

(3.) It would suffice to note that in essence the issue relates to the determination of the value of the perquisite in respect of the accommodation, furniture, water and electricity provided by the employer company to the assessee. As regards the issue with respect to accommodation, relying on Rule 3 of the income tax Rules, 1962, the Assessing Officer took the value of the perquisite on account of rent-free accommodation at 10% of the salary paid to the assessee by the company. However, in assessee's appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying on the decision in the case of Manmohan Modi, another assessee of the same group, determined the fair rental value as was fixed by the prescribed authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal but without any success. While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal again relied on this earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.K. Modi, (1993) 112 CTR 176 : (1993) 200 ITR 673 : (1993) 68 TAXMAN 157 while upholding the Appellate Commissioner's order, the Tribunal observed that no material had been placed before it to show that the facts and the circumstances in the case of the assessee were in any way different from that of the aforenoted case.