- (1.) OFFICER , intimating the employer of the petitioners as to how perquisites are to be valued under the provisions of IT Rules, 1962 (for short, "the Rules") for accommodation provided by the employer.
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is an association of teachers of the Kurukshetra University and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are in their individual capacity. The case of the petitioners is that they have been provided residential accommodation, for which rent is paid at par with the Haryana Government employees. In the impugned notice, the employer has been informed that perquisites should be valued as per r. 3 of the Rules. Accordingly, Kurukshetra University calculated the value of the accommodation as perquisites @ 15 per cent of the salary + DPA payable to them. Grievance of the petitioners is that the value of accommodation provided to them is much lesser than the perquisite assessed. They were also not getting house rent allowance which was adjusted towards rent of the accommodation. As per example given in para 7 of the petition, rent of Rs. 250 per month was being charged from Dr. S.C. Mishra, petitioner No. 2 and house rent allowance of Rs. 760 per month, which the said petitioner was entitled to, was also not being paid on account of his occupying the official accommodation. 15 per cent of the basic salary + DPA of the said petitioner comes to Rs. 39,606 which was far in excess of annual value of alleged concessional accommodation. It is further submitted that once uniform rate is being charged from all the employees, it cannot be said that the accommodation provided to the petitioners is concessional.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Steel Executives Association vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (2000) 160 CTR (AP) 38 : (2000) 241 ITR 20 (AP), wherein it was held that once uniform rent was being charged from the employees, it could not be held that accommodation provided was concessional. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Officers' Association, Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983) 139 ITR 937 (MP) and Calcutta High Court in ITO & Ors. vs. All India Vijaya Bank Officers Association & Ors. (1997) 141 CTR (Cal) 126 : (1997) 225 ITR 37 (Cal). In reply filed, valuation of perquisites has been supported on the basis of r. 3 of the Rules r/w s. 17(2) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in Murlidhar Dalmia vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 67 (Del) against which SLP was dismissed as reported in (1984) 145 ITR 4 (St).;