Gopal Krishna Singhania (Individual) vs Commissioner of Income Tax

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.—u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :

"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the applicant''s case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the enhancement of perquisite for the use of residential accommodation in the assessee''s case ?"

The assessee is an individual. His income comprised income from salary and share of profit in a firm, Messrs. Plywood Products, dividend income, interest income, etc. He was a director of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. The said company has provided him free furnished accommodation situate at 59-A Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay, with an area of 3, 227 sq. ft. The Income Tax Officer valued the said perquisite under rule 3(1)(ii) at Rs. 17,574 and added the same to the income of the assessee. This addition was questioned by the assessee, unsuccessfully before both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. We are unable to see any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. It is not suggested that, while valuing the perquisite, any statute, rule or other provision was not followed. We do not also find that the valuation is, in any manner, unreasonable. Accordingly, the question referred, being essentially a question of fact, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.