Disposed

Satish Kumar Tiwari v. the South Eastern Coal Field Limited

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2024WPS/3069/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition challenging the deduction of income tax on rent-free accommodation provided in a remote area, the High Court found that the relevant authorities and Income Tax Department had already accepted that such accommodation is tax-exempt under CBDT circulars. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition without setting aside the impugned order or issuing interim notices. The decision

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no interim notices issued or impugned order set aside.

Satish Kumar Tiwari Vs the South Eastern Coal Field Limited — Income Tax | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3069 of 2019

¶5

Satish Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Girja Shankar Tiwari Aged About 54 Years Working On The Post Of Overman, Secl Charcha, R/o Qtr. No. B-111, Charcha Post Charcha, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District: Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The South Eastern Coal Field Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. The Senior Manager (Personnel), SECL Baikunthpur Area, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. The General Manager SECL, Baikunthpur District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. The Finance Manager (Drawing And Disbursement Officer), Baikunthpur Area, Post Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ground Floor Aaykar Bhawan, 48, Area Hills Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. Pin - 462011., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

¶13

6. The Joint Director Office Of Income Tax Commissioner (Cpctpcs), Aaykar Bhawan, Sector - 6, Vaishali Ghaziyabad - 201010., District : Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	:	Mr. T.R. Chandrkar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 4	:	Mr. K.K. Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents No. 5 to 6	:	Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

05.01.2024

¶20

1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶21

(I) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing.

¶22

(ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P-1).

¶23

¶24

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to rectify/modify the form-16 in which tax imposed in the head of accommodation, in the ends of justice.

¶25

(iv) Grant any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶26

(v) Cost of the petition.

¶27

2 The facts of the present case, are that the petitioner is working on the post of Overman at SECL Charcha, which is a remote area as per the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) and the Income Tax Department, as the same is located more than 40 km away from the town having population of not exceeding 20,000 as per the census year 2001, and thus, the petitioner was entitled for rent free accommodation (RFA), but the department deducted income tax on rent free accommodation provided to the petitioner and later, he was communicated vide letter dated 20.03.2019.

¶28

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rent-free accommodation was provided 40 km away from the township in a remote location and therefore, the decision taken by the authorities for the deduction of income tax is erroneous.

¶29

4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4, Mr. Shrivastava, would submit that the payment of income tax on rent-free accommodation provided to ‘non-executive employees’ is being borne by the department itself, as the same is being deposited with the Income Tax Department on an annual basis under the head of “upkeep allowance” and there is no burden on the petitioner or any other employee for payment of Income Tax on rent-free accommodation.

¶30

5 Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 6, Mr Ajay Kumrani, would submit that as per circular of CBDT dated 02.12.2015, a person who occupies the accommodation provided by the employer, located in a remote area would not be liable to pay income tax on accommodation so occupied and the same

¶31

¶32

would not come under calculation of tax.

¶33

6 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

7 Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is disposed of, as respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as respondents No. 5 & 6, have categorically stated that a person who occupies the accommodation provided by the employer/SECL located in a remote area would not be liable to pay income tax on such accommodation.

¶35

8 Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Siddhant

Satish Kumar Tiwari v. the South Eastern Coal Field Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Tiwari v. the South Eastern Coal Field Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gayatri Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs M/S Alok Infotech Private Limited

Mukund Vs Panku (Died) through Legal Heirs.

Bhavesh Agrawal Vs Smt. Shanta Bai and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Tikaram and Ors. Vs Kush Kumar and Ors.