2000 PLP 70 (PTD)

ASHOK BHAN, J.

At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us by the . Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, along with the statement of the case, for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the addition of Rs.3,000 as perquisite on the ground that personal use of the car of the company by the assessee was unauthorized?" The Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment for the assessment year ? 976-77. found that the assessee was one of the directors of Auto . Piston Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited, Batala Road, Amritsar. It was found by him that the director and his family were using the car of the company for their private purposes during the period, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77. It was also found that Auto Piston Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited had debited a sum of Rs.83,809 as car expenses and 1/3rd of these expenses had been surrendered by the company on account of the use of the company's car by the directors and the managing directors of the company and their families' for ;their private purposes. The Income-tax Officer also found that the assessee had claimed a standard deduction of Rs.1,000 under section 166) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly showed that lie had been provided with conveyance by the company. He calculated the perquisite value of the use of the car at Rs.5,

587. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the facts and was of the view that the perquisite value of the use of the car could be taken at Rs.3,000 and allowed a relief of Rs.2,587 to the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that in the case of Auto Piston Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited, the Tribunal had noted that the company had not authorised the directors to use the company's car for their personal purposes. It was contended that the unauthorised use of the car by the directors could not be taken by the directors as a perquisite in their hands. The Tribunal, in the case of Auto Piston Mfg. Co. for the earlier year and another case of Pratap Steel Rolling Mills (Private) Limited (I.T.A. No. 352 of 1979, dated June 30, 1980), held that the company had not authorised the directors to use the company's car for their personal purposes and, therefore, it was not a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is one of fact. No interference, under the circumstances, is called for. The question referred to us is, accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee. M.B.A./3195/FC Reference answered.