Itta/87/2021 Of M/S. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NOs: 85. 87 AND 88 OF 2021 lTTA.No. 85 ot 2021 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act,1961against the order dated 23.04.2021 [passed ][in ] No.8B3/H/2014 [for ][assessment]Year 2OO7-2OOB onthe file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Bench ][']A', Hyderabad, prefened against the Order dated 28.02.2014 [passed ]in Appeal [No.]234IKMM/C|T (A)^/JA /2009-10 on the file of the Commissioner of [lncome Tax](Appeals), Vijayawada, preferred against the order dated 30.12.2009 [passed ]inPAN/GIR.No. AituqCT8873F/T-1O1 on the file of the Additional Commissioner [of]lncome Tax, Khammam Range, Khammam. Between: M/S The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Having its Registered Officeat Kothagudem Collieries, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director AND 1. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle ['t, ][Hyderabad] 2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle [13( ][t ]), Hyderabad. (R2 is not necessary) ...Appellant ...Respondent lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act,1961against the order dated 23.04.2021 passed in ITA No.881/Hl2O14 for assessmentYear 2006-2007, on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench' A', Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated 28.02.2014 passed in Appeal No.324IKMM/C|T (A)A/JA /2009-10 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax(Appeals), Vijayawada, preferred against the order dated 15.O2.2O1O passed inPANiGlR.No. AAACT8873F/T-10 1 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner oflncome Tax, Circle-|, Khammam Range, Khammam. Between: M/S. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Having its Registered Officeat Kothagudem Collieries, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Directorat Kothagudem Collieries, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director ...Appellant AND 1. Principal Commrssioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Hyderabad 2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle ['13(1), ]Hyderabad (R2 is not necessary) ..,Respondent lTTA.No. 88 ot 2021 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act,1961against the order dated 23.04.2021 passed in ITA No.B85/H/2014 for assessmentYear 2008-2009 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A', Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated 28.02.2014 passed in Appeal No.346/KMM/C|T (A)A/JA 12010-11 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax(Appeals), Vilayawada, preferred against the order dated 29.12.2O1O passed inPAN/GlR.No. AAACT8873F/T-101 on the file of the Additional Commissioner oflncome Tax, Khammam Range, Khammam. - €etween: Ivl/S. The Singareni corlieries company Limited, Having its Registered officeat Kothagudem Collieries, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director AND1. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Hyderabad2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad1. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Hyderabad2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad ...Appellant ... Respondent Counsel for the Appellantln all the ITTA'sSri Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddyln all the ITTA'sSri Manoj Reddy Keshi ReddyCounsel for Respondentsln all ITTA's : Sri J.V. [prasad, ]SC FOR INCOME TAXThe Court delivered the following : COMMON JUDGMENTThe Court delivered the following : COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY] AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI] ITTA Nos.85 87 AND[ 88 ][of ][2021] AND1. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Hyderabad2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad1. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Hyderabad2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 13(1), Hyderabad ...Appellant ... Respondent Counsel for the Appellantln all the ITTA'sSri Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddyln all the ITTA'sSri Manoj Reddy Keshi ReddyCounsel for Respondentsln all ITTA's : Sri J.V. [prasad, ]SC FOR INCOME TAXThe Court delivered the following : COMMON JUDGMENTThe Court delivered the following : COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY] AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI] ITTA Nos.85 87 AND[ 88 ][of ][2021] COMMO IUD[GMENT:][ (per ][Hon'ble ][Sti ][lustice ][P.SAI\,4 ][KOSH'!,] These Income Ta1 [Appeals are ][filed ][by ][the ][same ][assessee r'e']M/s. Singareni [Colleries Company ][Limited ][chatlenging ][the ][order]passedbythelncomeTaxAppellateTribunal,Ilyclerabacl'A'Bench'Hyderabad,inITANos.881,883and885/H/2014fort[re'assessmentyears 2006-07, [2007-08 ][and ][2008-09 ][decided ][by ][a ][common ][orcler ][datcd]23.04.2021. 2 I{eard Sri [Manoj Reddy ][Keshi ][Reddy, ][learned Counsel ][for ][the]appellant and [Sri ]J.V. [Prasad, ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the ][responc{ents-]Department. 3. Vide the [said ][impugned ][order, ][the ][learned ][Income ][Tax ][Appellate]Tribunal has [reiected ][the ][appeals ][preferred ][by ][the appellant ][herein]confirming [the order ][passed ][by ][the ][Commissioner ][of ][Incomc ][Tax](Appcals), [Viiavawada, ][as ][that ][also ][of ][the ][Assessing ][Officcr] 4. The issue involved in the present Income Tax Tribunal Appeals is Appeals in respect of the proceedings issued o- ^vuuc\r rtcreunder Seection 115 wE of theIncome Tax Act,7g67. 5. The facts in brief is that the appellant companywhich is a publicsector undertaking of the Government of Telanganaand Governmentof India is into the business of coal extractionand sale. Theestablishment is one which is primarily govemed under the provisionsof Mines Act, 7952. Taking into consideration the compelling workconciitions under which the work force underthe apfrellantc'stablishment works, the employees/ workers areprovidedwithcertrin benefits by the appellant herein in the capacity ofbeing theemployer towards the welfare of the employees/workersand theirfarnily ciependent upon them. The service conclitions Soverning thework force i.eworkers and the employees are governecl by theNational Coal Wages Ag-reemenl The said agreement rs en tered intolretween the management of the appellant establishment and the fointItiparrite Commirtee for Coal Industry flBCCI). The JBCCI consists of iI I) the representatives of the State Government, the rc-presentative of the Central Government, Members of various recognized Trade Unions.The agreement so entered into is known as National Coal WagesAgreement (for short 'NCWA'). The said agreement is a recognizedagreement having a binding ef fect in tcrms of the clef inition of"settlement" under the provisions of the Inclustrial Disprutcs Act,7947.6. In the course of entering into the agreernc'nt, the employerundertakes to provide various benefits, incc.ntives ancl facilities to itsemployees. The facilities inclucle supply oI clectricity to theirresidence, to the township where they stay ancl also to thc streets androads passing through the important areas particularly the residentiallocality. 7. Clause 8.3.1 of NCWA envisagcs provicling of 30 KWH of freeelectricity per month to each of its cmplol,ccs of the appellant. Theappellant incurs substantial payment evcrv year tort,arc{s meeting thecost of the said electricity which is Lreing provitletl kr the employees.Section 115WA of the I-I'Act deals with the fringe lrenc,fits provided by 7. Clause 8.3.1 of NCWA envisagcs provicling of 30 KWH of freeelectricity per month to each of its cmplol,ccs of the appellant. Theappellant incurs substantial payment evcrv year tort,arc{s meeting thecost of the said electricity which is Lreing provitletl kr the employees.Section 115WA of the I-I'Act deals with the fringe lrenc,fits provided by the employer which would be otherwise taxable under the IT Act.Further, the "Explanation" to Section 115W8(2)(E) deals with theemployees welfare also being part of the fringe benefits which wouldbe taxable. Further, the "Explanation,, to the saicl Clause E deals withcertain facilities which are not to be considered as an expendifure foremployees welfare. For proper understanding of the issue invorved in'the case, it would be relevant at trris stage to take note of the provisionunder section 115w8(2) and Crause E of the same along with the un-amended explanation that was thcre tilt 31.03.2009 and the amendedexplanation with effect from 01.04.2009. The relevant portion of Clause relevant portion of Clause portion of Clause of Clause Clause E of sub-section 2 of Section 8The relevant portion of Clause relevant portion of Clause portion of Clause of Clause Clause 115WB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is re-produced herein under:115WB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is re-produced herein under: (E) Employees'welfure Explanation. - For tlu purposes of tlis clnusc, any etpenditure incurredor payment made to - O fuW [any ]statutory obligntiort; or (ii) mitigate occupationaL lmznrtls; or (iii) prooide first ail facilitics itt tln lrcsltitnl or dispensary run by the employer; or (io) prooide crcche fncility for the [children ][of ][tlrc ][eruployee; ][or] (t:) sponsor n sportstnan, being [nn entployee; ][or] ftti) [orgnnise sports ][eaents ]for [employees,] slmll not he cortsitlcred [ns ][expenditure ]for [employees' ][uelfare;] g. In view of the explanation so provided to Clause E of sub-section 2 of Section 115WB, [the ][appellant ][herein ][have been ][pursuing ][with ][the]respondents stating [that ][the ][expenditure ][incurred ][towards ][providing]of electricity to [the ][employees ][would not ][be ][one ][which would ][be]taxable as it stands [exempted ][in ][terms ][of ][the ][explanation ][so ][provided]which perhaps [\\ras ][not ][accepted ][by ][the ][Assessing ][Officer,]Commissioncr of [Appcals ][and ][subsequently by ][the ] [as ][well'] 10. The contention [of ][the ][Assessing ][Officer was ][that ][firstly, ][the]benefit so providecl [bcing ][a ][welfare ][measure, ][the expendifure ][would]fall squarely within [the ambit ][of ][Clause E ][of ][sub-section 2 ][of ][section]115WB and hence, it [l-recornes ][taxable. second ][condition ][was that ][the]NCWA is only [a ][scttlement between ][the employer ][and ][employees]where there is onlt, [a ][contractual obligation ][for ][the employer towards] its employees. That [it ][is ][not ][a ][stahrtory ][document ][nor ][does ][the]settlement have [any ][statutory force of ][law ][so ][as ][to ][avail ][the ][benefits]under the explanation [to ][Section ][115\ ][/B(2XE) ][both under ][the un-]amended provision [and ][as ][also ][under ][the ][amended ][provision'] 11. It is necessary [at ][this ]iuncture [to ][take ][note ][of ][the ][couple ][of]decisions rcndered [on ][the ][said ][sub.iect ][issue' ][The ][first ][being ][the]judgment of the Hon'blc [Supreme ][Court ][in ][case ][of Mohan ][Mahto ][zt']Central Coal [Field ][Ltd.l, ][wltere ][considering ][the ][provisions ][of NCWA]rvhile cletermirring [whether ][it ][lras ][binding ][force ][of law ][or ][not, ][thc]Hon'ble Supreme [Court in ][paragraph ][No.2 ][and ][paragraph No'10 ][held]as under -2. ..... ['!'\rc ]tttrnts and [conditions ][of ][the ][serttice ][of] 11. It is necessary [at ][this ]iuncture [to ][take ][note ][of ][the ][couple ][of]decisions rcndered [on ][the ][said ][sub.iect ][issue' ][The ][first ][being ][the]judgment of the Hon'blc [Supreme ][Court ][in ][case ][of Mohan ][Mahto ][zt']Central Coal [Field ][Ltd.l, ][wltere ][considering ][the ][provisions ][of NCWA]rvhile cletermirring [whether ][it ][lras ][binding ][force ][of law ][or ][not, ][thc]Hon'ble Supreme [Court in ][paragraph ][No.2 ][and ][paragraph No'10 ][held]as under -2. ..... ['!'\rc ]tttrnts and [conditions ][of ][the ][serttice ][of] tlrc tLtorktnet toorkbrg [in ][coal ][mines ][are inter alia ][goaemed by ][a]"sattlcntctrt" ktntiptt tts National [Coal ][Wage ][Agreemetfi](NCI^/A) V. Indisputnlrly, the said [settlement, ][in ][terrus ][of ][sub-]scctiotr [(3) ]of Scctitttt [13 ][ttf ][tltc ][Industrial ][Disputes ][Act, ][1947 ][is]bituling ott tltc pnrtics.....". "10. A scttlement ruitlrin tlu meaning of uilt-srctit:lt (3) ofSectiott ['l8 ]of tlrc Industinl Disputes Act is bindhry on hoth thepnrties nrtd continues to renmin in force unless Ilrc snttrc isnltered, rtuttlifed or substihied by anotlrcr settlenrcnt......". 12. A simitar issue came up for consideration before the Jharkhand Higlr Court at Ranchi in L.P.A.No.17 of 2078 which has been decicledon 23.04.201.9 and where the Division Bench of the Jharkhand HighCourt, in paragraph 6, relying upon the aforesaid juc{gment of theHon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "6. lNc nre in agreement uith the contention of thc npptllnnt tlnt Nntionnl Coal Wage Agreement is stntutory in ntturL,. lt isntt ot.ttconrc o.f tripartite agleefient among the Cod (-orttpntnl,Lnltottr llnions and Central Goaernment. lt lns bcctr ltclrl lrlltln' Ilott'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Mnhto Vs. CtrttrnlCoalfields L,td. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549, tlmt it lmsstntrttonl force. I-eamed Single Judge cntne to tlrc ot'orcsnidf [trditrgs ][due ][to ]follotoing facts [and ][reasotls ][trlich ][ltm,L: ][ltcctt]depicted in ynragraph 7 of the impugned judgnrcnt ttthich rt'tdslu:rttutdtr: 7. (i) Atlnittedly, after the denth of tlrc Lfuct:rtstl|-tttrplotlec, late Lnxmi Raoidas on srrbntissitttt ttf npplication t'or [contpassionate ][apytoitrttrwil ][of ][lrcr],ld"rt ,or', by [Snmudri ][Deoi ][(notninee ][of ][tlrc]petitioner's 'considered the fatlrcr), case of [the ]the [Management- ]eldest brother [Cotnpatry]oi tlrcpetitioner, natiely, [SantoshRauidas ][in ][the ][year 2004']hut, by that timi, [tht ][said ][Santoslt Raoidas ][has ][died']so it iannot [be ]construed [that ][the respondents ][did ][rtot]consider the ca* [of ][tlrc ][legat ][luir ][cf ][the ][deccased]enrployee, late [Laxmi ][Rattidas ]t'or [considerntion ][of]contpissionate [appointment' ][It ]- [appears ][tlmt ][tlrc]tttotiwt of tlrc Ttetitioner [hnd ][applied ]for [tppoittttttctrt]of the pe'titioner [on ][compassiondte ][grountl ]-itt [tlu ][yaar]iTtt. Du, to [indecisiaeness ][on ][tht ][part of ][tlrc motlrcr]of tlu petitioner, [it ][uas ][not ][possible-on ][the ][part ][of ][tl-rc]iespondents [to ][consider ][tht ][case ][oi ][the ][petitiorrcr ][for]comP assionate [aPPoinhnent ]',ld"rt ,or', by [Snmudri ][Deoi ][(notninee ][of ][tlrc]petitioner's 'considered the fatlrcr), case of [the ]the [Management- ]eldest brother [Cotnpatry]oi tlrcpetitioner, natiely, [SantoshRauidas ][in ][the ][year 2004']hut, by that timi, [tht ][said ][Santoslt Raoidas ][has ][died']so it iannot [be ]construed [that ][the respondents ][did ][rtot]consider the ca* [of ][tlrc ][legat ][luir ][cf ][the ][deccased]enrployee, late [Laxmi ][Rattidas ]t'or [considerntion ][of]contpissionate [appointment' ][It ]- [appears ][tlmt ][tlrc]tttotiwt of tlrc Ttetitioner [hnd ][applied ]for [tppoittttttctrt]of the pe'titioner [on ][compassiondte ][grountl ]-itt [tlu ][yaar]iTtt. Du, to [indecisiaeness ][on ][tht ][part of ][tlrc motlrcr]of tlu petitioner, [it ][uas ][not ][possible-on ][the ][part ][of ][tl-rc]iespondents [to ][consider ][tht ][case ][oi ][the ][petitiorrcr ][for]comP assionate [aPPoinhnent ]' (ii) lt is n settled position [thnt ][tht ][contpassio'iite]',tppointment is not a matter of right' rather' ii is nrnattcr of concession' [On ][perusal ][of ][tl.rc ][irtryrgnad]Annexuie-'l'9 [to ][tlrc ][ruit ][applicatiott' ][tlrc ][srune ][does]not suffer ftom [any ][infimtity ][or ][iregtilnrity ][so ][ls ][to]ruarrant interferenct [of ][this Court'] (iii) So far as the claim [of ][the petitiona-r ]for [grmt of]nrcnetary compensation [as ][adntissible ][undu ][tlrc]releuant"prooisions [of ][tlte ][N'C'W'A' ][is ][conccrned'. the]rnother of the [petitioner is entitled, ][prouided ][tlnt ][slrc]frles [att ][application ][for ][grant ][of tlrc ][same" ]['] 13. Tw'o [similar ][issues ][under ][the ][provisions ][of ][the ][Income Tax itself] camc up [before the ][Nagpur ][Bench ][of ][the Bombay ][I'Iigh Court' ][[irst ][itr] Lrcoorc'Iax [Appeal ][No.40 ][of ][2015' ][In ][the ][case ][where ][it ][lvas ][arl ][appg;1[] filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s. WesternCoalfields Ltd., Nagpur, the Division Bench took the follor.ving stand:"6. Ttoo additionnl questions, to ba lookctl into lrcrc nreCoalfields Ltd., Nagpur, the Division Bench took the follor.ving stand:"6. Ttoo additionnl questions, to ba lookctl into lrcrc nre (i) Wrctlrcr on the facts nnd in tlrc circunrstnnces of tlrc cnse itlau, tlrc ITAT is jttstifed in lrcltling tlmt tlrc etpL:tttlihre ofRs.342.42 lncs on nccoutrt of tlonntiotr to ctlttcntionnlinstifutions is an alloruable axpentliture undar corynrntt, socinlresponsibility eoen tlnugh it is only nppticntiort of irtconrc? (ii) Wuther on tlrc fncts nnd in tlrc circtur rctntr L.t,s ol' tltc cuse irtlaru, tlrc ITAT is jrtstifutl the disnllotonncc oi corttrnct cltrtrges ofRs.6,25,000/- pnid to Nagintleti Agnnunl tt/s.40(n)(in) oflncome T'ax Act, 7961 on nccottttt of non tletluctiott o.l' IDS? Accordingly, utc hnoa henrtl Adttocttte pnrclutrt, fctr tlrcDepartment Aduocate Detomti for fissesscc.Department Aduocate Detomti for fissesscc. We fnd tlut tlrc prooision for efutcntiortnl fnt ilitits is lrcittgmnde by assessce ns n lrnrt of its obligntion uttdt,r tariottsNationnl Coal La{nge Agrautrcnt (NCWA), tt,hiclt nrc lL,gnlltl enforceable in tenns [of ][Section ][78 ][of ][tlu ][lrulustrinl ][Dispute] Act. Tlu said [prooision ][is ][also ][acceptcd ][and ][allorued ][by]L992' [In ]Department since t'nct, [assessnent ][order ][itself]records that for [nssessnrctrt ][yenr ][1995-96, ][nppenl ]fled [by]Deltartnrcnt fut tlis [respect before ] [u'ns ][zoithdrarun' ][Ii ][is]not flrc case of Delturtnrcnt [that ][n ][trc ][nnd ][objects of ][nssessee ][tlo]not permit srtch [expetditure. ][Fnct ][:;lnu ][tlnt, ][to ][prooide]ed:acatiott touards of [its ][entployees ][rolro ][nre ][tttorkittg ][at ][siles]tolriclL are otlrcrtoise [atoay ]t'rottt [ttttutt, ][scliooling ]Jnciliiry [is]being proaided by [etnployar. ][To yrottida ][hcttcr ]facility, [tltc]central school organizntiott [mt ][nulcrtnkitrg ][of ][Union ][of ][htdia]is rcquested to [ot't'er ][it ][at ][suclt sitc.] ln this situatiott, [u'c ]find [thnt ][ntt ][sultstaiial ][questions ][of]lazu as sought to be [raiscd nrise ][out ][ttf ][concurrett ]finding [of ] andITAT". 14. The sarne [view ][rvas ][further ][rciteraLecl ][in ][yet ][another ][appeal] preferred by the Incorne ['Iax ][Dcpartnreut ][in ] [No'24 ][of ][20'19 ][again]before the Division [Bench ][of ][Nagpul ][tlench ][of ][the ][High ][Court ][of] Bombay. Dealing witrr the fringe benefits and expenses made in thecontext of value of frec issuc of coal, medicar facilities, educationalfacilities, grants to school and institutions, sports and recreationalfacilities, the Nlagp'r Irench of the Bombay High Court, wherein thedeliberation substantially was what is reflected in paragraph 2 andparagraph 3 of thc saicl judgment and the finding of the Bench isreflected in paragr.aph 5, as uncler: 14. The sarne [view ][rvas ][further ][rciteraLecl ][in ][yet ][another ][appeal] preferred by the Incorne ['Iax ][Dcpartnreut ][in ] [No'24 ][of ][20'19 ][again]before the Division [Bench ][of ][Nagpul ][tlench ][of ][the ][High ][Court ][of] Bombay. Dealing witrr the fringe benefits and expenses made in thecontext of value of frec issuc of coal, medicar facilities, educationalfacilities, grants to school and institutions, sports and recreationalfacilities, the Nlagp'r Irench of the Bombay High Court, wherein thedeliberation substantially was what is reflected in paragraph 2 andparagraph 3 of thc saicl judgment and the finding of the Bench isreflected in paragr.aph 5, as uncler: "2. Additiort o _llls.S9t.22 Lacs being onlue for fringe benef.tsin respcct of uTtcndihrc Llrr the twlfnre of employees by theAsscssnu,nt Officrr ad nnintninad by tlrc Conmtissioner oflncorrrc Tn [Aprynls] hul rct,erscd by tlu lncome Tax AppealTribunnl is tlre ttltjcL-t mnttcr of chnllenge in this appenl fiIed ntthe instnrrcc of tlu, R-cuerura. These fringe benefts pertain toexpendiltrrt urndt itr Ilrc contcrt of ztnlue of free issue of conl,rnedicnl fncilitirs, tducntionnl fncitities, grnnts to school anrlittsti ttttiotrs, sltot.ts n,d recrcntionnl fncilities. The Tribunal hashcld tlnt itt t'it,rp of tlrc Ttrot,isiotrs of thc Nntional Conl WageAgrcetruttt, tlr ltrooisiott of *clt hcnefits tuere nmde being statutory obligntiotts [rtnd ][lrence ][uare ][tlot ][etigible ][to ][Fringe]Burcft'inx. 3. Stui A. Pnrcltu'c, [leanrcd ][counxl ]for [tlc ][appellant ][subt'tilted] tlmt not tuitlrctnntlitrg [tlrc Nntional ][Coal Wage ][Agteentent, ][toitlr]regnrtl to tltc ltnd [Sports ][and ][Recteation ][Facilities, ][tlrc]prouisiotrs of SectiorL [115 ][Wts(2)(E) ][and ][erlanatiot ][thereto]irtrodttccd by ttirtttc [ttf ][Finance ][Act ][of ][2008 ][such ][expenditure]ttnde rons rnl to [Lte ][cottsidered ][as expenditure ]for [entployces]toclfnrc. He, [tlurct'orc, ][srtbirtits ][that ][since ][the ][prexnt]ltrocceilirrys [pcrtnitr ][to ][tlrc ][assessment ][year ][2006-07, ][the]axplruntiorr cantrot [ba ][git'cn retrospectitte ][effect" ]' 5. Ott ltcnring tfu [lennttrl ][cotntseL ]for [tlrc ][parties, ][it ][is ][clear that]tlrc intplcttrcttntion of [tlw ] [ational ][Coal ][lVage ][Agreement ][lus]beert ltcltl to n strtttttottl [ol'ligation tohich ][is ][binding ][on ][thc]tTsscssc(:. T-hc ctpctvlitttrc [tottards ][sports ][and ][recreation]fnciiitits [is ][also ][t ][pnrt ][of ][thttt ][ngreenrcnt ][as ][is ][clear ][from ][Aausc]10.8.1". 15. From the plain rcading of the facts and circumstances of thosecases c{ealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also by the I{ighCourt of Jharkhand and again that of the two cases by the High Courtof Bombay, u..hen we compare the facts of the present case,undisputedly in the instant cases also, the issue is in respect of thebenefits provided to the employees by way of supply of electricity totheir residerrce, township and skeet lights. The question again wouldbe rvhether this so called benefit is one which is for the welfare oi theemployccs or not and whether it is not part of the statutory obtigation.The other unclisputed fact is that the said benefit extcncled b), th"appellan t/ernp loyer is in terms of the clauses that are rcflected in theNCWA. [-fhc' ]jutlgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs clearlyindicate antl lav to rest the issue as to whether it is a statutoryclocument or r1ot, where all the judgments referrecl to abovc haveclearly hclcl that NCWA is a statutory document and it has binclingforce of lan'so far as its enforceability is concerned. 1rs. [Under ][the ][cilcuiris'ta-t ][rces' ][:: ][we ][Iooll ][iirto ths ][tLn-i';l':i"ctcd]"Expl.rL'.a'-ion' [to ][Section ][115W8(2XE) ][of ][the ][Act' ][it ]["arould ][{urthei]rnake [it ][clear ][that ][any cxpenditule ][which ][was incurred ][ir" order ][to]iulfill [a ][stal-utory ][obligation ][u ][oulcl ][not be ][considered ][as ][an]expcn<liture [for ][employees ][wclfarc' Sc alsc' ][1arls1 ][we ][iool: into ][the]eu'osequcilt [alnendment ][Lrlou6i-rt ]["'-r ][t'ire ][" ][Explanation" ][to ][Clause ] [of]Sub-Section [2 ][oi ][Section ][1l5WB' s'i;-clause ][(i; ][it ][also ][clearly ][exciudes]e)<Pcnses [irrcurred ][or ][paynretrts rnacle ][tcr ][fulfil ][any ][statutory]obiigatiorr' [So' ][under ][both ][l'he ][''.iicurLls[ances ][i'e' ][even ][plior ][i'o ][t.he]-*v'e'f ' 01'0+'2009' [the ][expericiiture]arnerrJment [to ][the ][explanation ]t: incurrec[ [ton'ards ][the ][su;'ply ][r-r[ ][eiectricity ][by ][the ][*t:':" ]:t' cinpicyees [would ][be ][excludecl ][fcl ][the ][Purpose: ][of ][tleating ][it ][as ][an]experiditure [towards ][the employees ][beneiit ][is ][concerned']17. [For ][ali ][ttre ][aforesaicl ][reasons'. ][rve ][arb ][of ][the ][considered ][opinion]that [tkre ][view ][taken ][by ][the ][Assessing ][Officer' ][so ][also ][by ][the]Cotnmissioner [of ][Incoure ][Tax ][(Appeais) ][and ][Income ][1'ax ][Appcllate]Tribunai [are ][not ][sustainable ][and4'c ][same ][is ][accordingly ][set] j aside/quashed. It is held that the expenditure so incurred by theappellant towards the supply of electricity would be excluded frombeing treated as an expenditure towards the employees r,r,elfare. 18. The appeals accordingly stand allowed. No order as to costs.Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed s D/'c [v ] [ALL:i3}s+'#ty+[xA]e [z'-] //rRUEcoPY/t SECTIOKOFFICER nu xo [s ][n ][v]o n e [a ][i ][r ]".&r. [:."t ][i: ][:I ][i ][I;:: ][i,*t ][$::,: ][; ][fi ]one Fair [Copy ]- iFirr [to ]nis [ttt" ]Lordship's kind [non'tllDs'i-Justice ]Perusal)[N' ] To, 1. The lncome The lncome lncome [Tax Appellate ][Tribunal"Hyder''b?9'P'9:th ][' ][A" ][Hyderabad'][[ViiaYawada]] 1. The lncome The lncome lncome 2. The [Commi.sion"' ][ot ][rn"im"1ii ][tnpb""tt)' ][[ViiaYawada]]3. The [Additionat ][u-ommrssilit"'' ][oirniorn" Tai'' ][Khammam Range' Khammam']4. The Assistant [uommrssionl'"oi ][lntorn" ][Tax' ][Circle ][l' ][Khammam ][Hange']Khammam.1'1 LR Copies6The Under [Secretary, ][Unlon ][of lndia' ][Ministry ][of Law' ][Justice and ][Company].'"78IititgF:*#tff*r,is+**;;'#'lig'*'rJffi [[CoPies]] 10.Two CD CD Njb\ Y 0.Two CD CD [[CoPies]] HIGH COURT DATED:1510212024 COMMON JUDGMENT lTTA.Nos.8s, 87 &88 of 2021 ALLOWING ALL THE APPEALSWITHOUT COSTS R HE 14:to\.'),J7.2 APR [202{]+*O5spArcHcO