SIVAKARTHICK RAMAN ,MADURAI vs. ACIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , CIRCLE , MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 59/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 April 2025AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax payment certificate from the People's Republic of China was not furnished during the draft assessment proceedings, as indicated in paragraph 9 of the draft assessment order. Paragraph 6.6.3 of the DRP order also confirmed that the assessee was not entitled to treaty benefits under Article 15 of the India-China DTAA due to the absence of proof of tax payment on income earned for services rendered outside India. The assessee's representative presented new documents (pages 5-8 of the paper book) as proof of tax payment, conceding they were not filed before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal treated these as new evidence and decided to remand the matter to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration and verification of the proof of tax payment in China. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine these documents and pass an order in accordance with the law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sivakarthick Raman, filed an appeal against the final assessment order dated 27.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2019-20. This order was passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP), Bengaluru, dated 27.06.2022. The DRP had held that the assessee was not eligible for treaty benefits under Article 15 of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) because the assessee had not demonstrated payment of taxes on income earned for services rendered outside India. The assessee's representative submitted new documents, including an individual income tax payment record and salary details from China, which were not previously available to the Tax Officer (TPO), DRP, or Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee prayed for the matter to be remanded for verification of these new documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit under Article 15 of the India-China DTAA (mixed question of law and fact, concerning Article 15 of the India-China DTAA). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that new documents, including an individual income tax payment record and salary details from China (pages 5-8 of the paper book), were crucial for a fair adjudication. These documents were not available before the TPO/DRP/AO. The assessee relied on an Application under Rule 29 and prayed for a remand to the TPO/AO for verification and fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative (ld. DR) did not report any objection to the assessee's request for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Hearing: 24.04.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जगदीश, लेखा सद� के सम� । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member I.T(TP).A. No.59/Chny/2022 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sivakarthick Raman, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 5/200, 2nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Income Tax, T. Pudukudi, Madurai 625 019. International Taxation Circle, Madurai. [PAN:AJNPR3214R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 27.07.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

The assessee raised grounds No. 1 to 5 amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the Assessing

2 I.T.(TP)A. No.59/Chny/22

Officer is justified to hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit under Article 15 of the India – China DTAA.

3.

Admittedly, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order in pursuance of the directions dated 27.06.2022 of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru, which held that the assessee is not eligible for treaty benefits since the assessee has not demonstrated that he had paid the taxes on the income for rendering services outside India vide para 6.6.3. When confronting the same, the ld. AR Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate placed on record paper book containing 12 pages. She referred to page 5, which is Annexure-A stated to be in Chinese language and true English translation is at page 6 of the paper book. The ld. AR submits that it is individual income tax payment record from 01.01.2018 to 01.12.2018. The ld. AR further drew our attention to page 8 and submits that the said documents contain salary details from January, 2019 to December, 2019. She argued that these true copies of page 5 to 8 are important documents for fair adjudication in respect of the claim of the assessee, which were not available before the TPO/DRP/AO. She drew our attention to the Application under Rule 29 at page 9 of the paper book and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the TPO/AO for verification and fresh adjudication.

3 I.T.(TP)A. No.59/Chny/22

4.

The ld. DR Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT did not report objection in this regard.

5.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that the tax payment certificate issued by the authorities of People’s Republic of China was not furnished during draft assessment proceedings, which is clear from para 9 of the draft assessment order. Further, it is also clear from para 6.6.3 of the DRP order, wherein, the Panel held that the assessee is not entitled to claim any benefit under Article 15 of the India-China DTAA in the absence of any proof showing that the assessee had paid the taxes on the income for rendering services outside India. The ld. AR, as discussed above, placed on record at page 5 to 8 stating it to be new tax payment record and fairly conceded those documents were not filed before the authorities below. Therefore, considering the same, in the interest of justice, treating the said evidences as new, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the TPO/AO for fresh consideration for its verification the proof for payment of taxes in China. The Assessing Officer shall examine the same and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 I.T.(TP)A. No.59/Chny/22

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th April, 2025 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 30.04.2025 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →