- (1.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 6, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether on the interpretation of Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee who is looking after the business of the partnership firm Anand Gum Industries at Bombay, occupies portion of the business premises for his personal residence has been rightly assessed for the benefit or perquisite because of the occupation of the portion under Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in the firm, Anand Gum Industries, Jodhpur, carrying on business at Bombay. The assessee-firm purchased a flat known as "Matri Ashish" at Napean Sea Road, Bombay, for a sum of Rs. 1,71,000. The assessee, who is looking after the business of the firm at Bombay, occupied two-thirds portion of the said flat for his personal residence and the remaining one-third portion was used for the purpose of the business of the firm. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee derived the benefit or perquisite because of the occupation of the flat and, therefore, Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act was attracted. The value of such 'benefit was estimated by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 8,000 on the basis of the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 where a similar addition was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The decision in the case of M. Ct. Muthiah v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 516 (Mad) was also taken into consideration.
(3.) In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the order of assessment was upheld. The matter was challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and following the view taken in the previous assessment year, the second appeal was also dismissed.;