No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR
PER B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
Both appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Noida, dated 09.05.2017.
The only issue involved in this case is that whether service tax
is includable in the gross revenue for computing profits under
presumptive provisions of section 44BB of the I.T. Act, 1961 or not ?
2 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
We have heard the rival submissions on the issue under
consideration and have gone through the entire material available on
record. The contention of the ld. AR at the outset has been that the
core issue as culled out in grounds of appeal stands settled in favour
of the assessee and against the Revenue by Co-ordinate Bench of
Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for preceding assessment year
in the identical facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. DR
though relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not
controvert the above contention of the assessee regarding the issue
having been covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of Tribunal.
We have gone through the above referred order of Tribunal and find
that the core issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the
assessee in the similar facts and circumstances.
The assessee is a non-resident company .During the year
under consideration, it had offered revenues to taxation on
account of ongoing contract entered with ONGC Ltd. The
assessee, in its return of income, had claimed that the taxable
revenues were to be computed in terms of section 44BB of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.During the course of assessment
proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that an amount of
Rs.****** received on account of service tax had not been
added to the gross revenue chargeable to tax u/s 44BB of the
Act. It was the assessee’s contention that statutory charges
3 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
cannot form part of the amount for the purpose of deemed
profit u/s 44BB of the Act. As per the assessee, service tax
was in the nature of reimbursement and hence not includible
in gross receipts for the purpose of taxation. The assessee
contended that it had acted only as a collection agency for the
Government for collection of service tax and as such, the
collections on account of service tax could not be considered
as income generating receipts in the hands of the assessee. It
was further contended before the Assessing Officer that any
receipt unconnected with the business of exploration,
exploitation of oil etc. could not form part of the taxable
receipts u/s 44BB of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer
was of the opinion that for the purpose of presumptive
determination of the assessee’s profit, the quantum of amount
received from the customers against its service tax obligation
had to be essentially considered as part of the receipt and,
accordingly, a sum of Rs. ***** was added back for the
purpose of calculating the gross receipts on which the
presumptive tax rate had to be applied.
The Ld. DR submitted that Section 44BB makes a special
provision for computing profits and gains of the non-resident
assessee engaged in the business of exploration, etc., of
mineral oils. Sub-section (1) provides that in respect of such
4 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
an assessee, notwithstanding anything contained in sections
28 to 41 and sections 43 to 43A, an assessee shall be deemed
to have earned ten per cent profit on the amount mentioned in
sub-section (2) received by him. It was submitted by the Ld.
DR that Section 44BB is a complete code in itself. It provides
by a legal fiction to be the profits and gains of the non-
resident assessee engaged in the business of oil exploration at
the rate of 10 per cent of the aggregate amount specified in
sub-section (2). He submitted that the Hon'ble Uttrakhand HC
has consistently held in a number of cases that the aggregate
amount received be included in total income for taxation under
section 44BB:
The Ld. DR submitted that service tax receipts need to be
included in aggregate amount brought to tax under section
44BB because:
(i) Section 44BB is a self contained code providing for
computation of profits at a fixed percentage of
gross receipts of the assessee and all the
deductions, exemptions and exclusions from
income are deemed to have been allowed;
(ii) It is open to those who want to claim deductions,
exemptions and exclusions in assessment to opt to
proceed under section 44BB (3).
5 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
(iii) Once the receipts are offered to tax u / s 44BB (1)
& (2), which provides for computation of profits on
gross basis, there is no scope for computing or
recomputing the profits by excluding any element
of receipts from the total turnover as the same
would amount to defeating the very purpose of
providing for a scheme of simpler mode of
computation of profits and obviating the need for
accounting for individual receipts or payments.
The Ld. DR further submitted that the amount mentioned in
sub-section (2) of section 44BB clearly shows that the amount
paid to the assessee on account of provision of services and
facilities in connection with the extraction or production of
mineral oil, whether paid in or outside India, are to be
included. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the service tax
receipt squarely falls within the principle enunciated in
Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542
(SC) wherein it was laid down that sales tax charged forms
part of the trading receipts and is as such liable to be assessed
to income tax. The Ld. DR submitted that since then the courts
have consistently held similarly for all kinds of taxes or
government receipts (that were received by the assessee
during the relevant PY) that these are taxable receipts and he
relied on the following judicial pronouncements:
6 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
CITATION TAX / RECEIPT [1997] 228 ITR 112 (All) Jagdish Prasad Nigam Excise Duty [2006] 154 TAXMAN 266 (ALL) Mohan Shramic Central Sales Tax Udyog Ltd and Local Sales Tax [2012] 28 TAXMANN.COM 94 (CAL) Poddar Projects Surcharge is part Of rent [2013] 35 taxmann.com 565 (Allahabad) UP Hotels Luxury Tax [1982] 9 Taxman 173 (Punj_Har) Kunjpura Kiln Royalty (payable to government) [2006] 154 Taxman 274 (Allahabad) Rampur Distillery Export Duty [2015] 58 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) Ovira Logistics Service Tax.
The Ld. DR submitted that in view of the above mentioned
case laws, the receipt of service tax from ONGC is definitely
connected with the business of exploration and / or extraction
of oil and needs to be included in the aggregate amount to be
brought to tax under section 44BB. He further submitted that
it is not precise to categorize service tax receipt merely as a
statutory liability. It is also to be categorised as contractual
liability whereby the 'service receiver' agrees to bear this
expense and accordingly pays the 'service provider'
(assessee). It was submitted that it is the practice in the oil
and gas industry to contractually bind the 'service receiver' to
bear this expense. Thus, it is a matter of contract (implicit or
explicit) between the parties because it is improbable /
impossible that 'service receiver' will agree to reimburse a
7 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
liability which is specifically that of the service provider
(assessee).
The Ld. AR, in response, submitted that the issue of service
tax is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in the case of DIT vs Mitchell Drilling International Pty. Limited
in I.T.A. No. 403/2013 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
its decision dated 28.09.2015 has dealt the issue at length. He
submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in Mitchell Drilling (Supra), the issue is
covered in the favour of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and have also
perused the records. It is seen that the issue of excludability
of service tax in the gross receipts is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Mitchell Drilling International Pty Limited (supra) wherein the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that service tax being
statutory levy should not form part of gross receipts as per
provisions of section 44BB of the Act. The relevant
observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under:- “8
“44BB. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in sections 28 to 41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an
assessee, being a non-resident, engaged in the business of
providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying
plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the
8 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils, a
sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts
specified in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be the profits
and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head
"Profits and gains of business or profession" :
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in a case where
the provisions of section 42 or section 44D or section 44DA or
section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of
computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in
those sections.
(2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the
following, namely:—
(a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to
the assessee or to any person on his behalf on account of the
provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply
of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the
prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in
India; and
(b) the amount received or deemed to be received in India by
or on behalf of the assessee on account of the provision of
services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant
and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting
for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils outside India.”
9 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
Section 44BB begins with a non obstante clause that
excludes the application of Sections 28 to 41 and Sections 43
and 43A to assessments under Section 44 BB. It introduces
the concept of presumptive income and states that 10% credit
of the amounts paid or payable or deemed to be received by
the Assessee on account of “the provision of services and
facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery
on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or
extraction or production of, mineral oils in India” shall be
deemed to be the profits and gains of the chargeable to tax.
The purpose of this provision is to tax what can be legitimately
considered as income of the Assessee earned from its business
and profession.
The expression ‘amount paid or payable’ in Section 44 BB
(2) (a) and the expression ‘amount received or deemed to be
received’ in Section 44 BB (2) (b) is qualified by the words ‘on
account of the provision of services and facilities in connection
with, or supply of plant and machinery.’ Therefore, only such
amounts which are paid or payable for the services provided
by the Assessee can form part of the gross receipts for the
purposes of computation of the gross income under Section 44
BB (1) read with Section 44 BB (2).
It is in this context that the question arises whether the
service tax collected by the Assessee and passed on to the
10 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
Government from the person to whom it has provided the
services can legitimately be considered to form part of the
gross receipts for the purposes of computation of the
Assessee’s ‘presumptive income’ under Section 44BB of the
Act.
In Chowringhee Sales Bureau (supra) sales tax in the sum
of Rs. 32,986 was collected and kept by the Assessee in a
separate ‘sales tax collection account’. The question
considered by the Supreme Court was:
‘Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
sum of Rs. 32,986 had been validly excluded from the
assessee's business income for the relevant assessment
year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the
amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer
since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating
that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the
Supreme Court held that the sales tax collected, and not
deposited with the treasury, would form part of the Assessee’s
trading receipt.
The decision in George Oakes (P) Ltd. (supra) was
concerned with the constitutional validity of the Madras
General Sales (Definition of Turnover and Validation of
Assessments) Act, 1954 on the ground that the word turnover
was defined to include sales tax collected by the dealer on
11 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
inter-state sales. Upholding the validity of the said statute the
Supreme Court held that “the expression ‘turnover’ means the
aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold,
whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable
consideration, and when a sale attracts purchase tax and the
tax is passed on to the consumer, what the buyer has to pay
for the goods includes the tax as well and the aggregate
amount so paid would fall within the definition of turnover.”
Since the tax collected by the selling dealer from the
purchaser was part of the price for which the goods were sold,
the legislature was not incompetent to enact a statute
pursuant to Entry 54 in List II make the tax so paid a part of
the turnover of the dealer.
In the considered view of the Court, both the
aforementioned decisions were rendered in the specific
contexts in which the questions arose before the Court. In
other words the interpretation placed by the Court on the
expression “trading receipt’ or ‘turnover’ in the said decisions
was determined by the context. The later decision of the
Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works (supra)
which sought to interpret the expression ‘turnover’ was also in
another specific context. There the question before the
Supreme Court was “whether excise duty and sales tax were
12 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
includible in the ‘total turnover’ which was the denominator in
the formula contained in Section 80 HHC (3) as it stood in the
material time?”
The Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in
Chowringhee Sales Bureau (supra) and answered the question
in the negative. The Supreme Court noted that for the
purposes of computing the ‘total turnover’ for the purpose of
Section 80 HHC (3) brokerage, commission, interest etc. did
not form part of the business profits because they did not
involve any element of export turnover. It was observed: “just
as commission received by an assessee is relatable to exports
and yet it cannot form part of ‘turnover’, excise duty and
sales-tax also cannot form part of the ‘turnover’.” The object
of the legislature in enacting Section 80 HHC of the Act was to
confer a benefit on profits accruing with reference to export
turnover. Therefore, "turnover" was the requirement.
“Commission, rent, interest etc. did not involve any turnover.”
It was concluded that ‘sales tax and excise duty’ like the
aforementioned tools like interest, rent etc. ‘also do not have
any element of ‘turn over’’.
In CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works (supra), the Supreme
Court approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT
v. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (supra) which in turn
considered the decision of the Supreme Court in George Oakes
13 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
(P) Ltd. (supra). In the considered view of the Court, the
decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Machines Works
(supra) is sufficient to answer the question framed in the
present appeal in favour of the Assessee. The service tax
collected by the Assessee does not have any element of
income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts
for the purposes of computing the ‘presumptive income’ of the
Assessee under Section 44 BB of the Act.
The Court concurs with the decision of the High Court of
Uttarakhand in DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd (supra)
which held that the reimbursement received by the Assessee
of the customs duty paid on equipment imported by it for
rendering services would not form part of the gross receipts
for the purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act.
The Court accordingly holds that for the purposes of
computing the ‘presumptive income’ of the assessee for the
purposes of Section 44 BB of the Act, the service tax collected
by the Assessee on the amount paid t it for rendering services
is not to be included in the gross receipts in terms of Section
44 BB (2) read with Section 44 BB (1). The service tax is not
an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be
received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it. The
Assessee is only collecting the service tax for passing it on to
the government.
14 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
The Court further notes that the position has been made
explicit by the CBDT itself in two of its circulars. In Circular No.
4/2008 dated 28th April 2008 it was clarified that “Service tax
paid by the tenant doesn't partake the nature of "income" of
the landlord. The landlord only acts as a collecting agency for
Government for collection of Service Tax. Therefore, it has
been decided that tax deduction at source) under sections
194-I of Income Tax Act would be required to be made on the
amount of rent paid/payable without including the service tax.’
In Circular No. 1/2014 dated 13th January 2014, it has been
clarified that service tax is not to be included in the fees for
professional services or technical services and no TDS is
required to be made on the service tax component under
Section 194J of the Act.
The question framed, is therefore, answered in the
negative i.e. favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.”
Further Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of
DIT International Taxation Vs M/s Schlumberger Asia Services
Ltd. in ITA No. 40 of 2012 vide order dated 12.04.2019 held
that the amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider)
by the ONGC (service recipient), representing the service tax
paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would
not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses
15 ITA No.4641, 4642.Del.2017 R & B Falcon (A) PTY LTD.
(a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act. The
Hon’ble Court is clearly spelt that even otherwise, it is not
every amount paid on account of provision of services and
facilities which must be deemed to be the income of the
assessee under Section 44BB . It is only such amounts,
which are paid to the assessee on account of the services and
facilities provided by them, in the prospecting for or extraction
or production of mineral oils, which alone must be deemed to
be the income of the assessee.
Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the judgment
as laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble
Uttarakhand High Court , we hold that the service tax receipts
donot form part of receipts for computation of income in the
section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of November, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*Binita* Dated : 24/11/2021 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), New Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.