Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, “चे�ई अिधकरण चे�ई“ �यायपीठ �यायपीठ �यायपीठ चे�ई �यायपीठ चे�ई चे�ई चे�ई चे�ई चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI ] ] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-2(2), M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. International Taxation, Ltd. Vs Chennai No.45-A, Velachery Main Road Chennai – 600042 अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� �त् �त् यथ� �त् �त् यथ� यथ�/ (Respondent) यथ�
Assessee by : Shri Bharathi Krishnaprasad, CA Revenue by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27/05/2022 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the department is arising out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in Appeal No. ITA No.06/CIT(A)-16/2017-18, vide order dt. 12/04/2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) against the assessment order dt. 31/03/2017 passed u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act passed by the DCIT, IT-2(2), Chennai. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 21 days in filing of this appeal by the revenue. The revenue has filed a condonation petition. On perusal of the same, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented by sufficient cause from filing of the appeal in time. Hence, we condone the delay and admit this appeal of the revenue.
The grounds of appeal taken by the revenue are seven (7) in numbers and all essentially relate to the limitation applicable for passing of order u/s
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 2 201(1)/(1A) of the Act to hold the assessee as an “assessee in default” for non-deduction of tax at source on payments made by the assessee to certain non-residents. All these grounds relate to the legal issue of limitation as the ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the matter on merits of the case and adjudicated only on the legal issue of limitation.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a company registered in India, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sutherland Inc, USA. Assessee is engaged in the business of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). During the course of verification of Form 15CA/CB filed by the assessee for financial year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14, the ld. AO noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on certain remittances/payments made to non- residents towards Telecommunication/Bandwidth Charges, Purchase of software and Reimbursement of expenses, as required u/s 195 of the Act. A showcause notice dt. 09/03/2017 was issued by the ld. AO for initiating proceedings u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act which was complied by the assessee vide its submission dt. 29/03/2017. In the submission made by the assessee, the proceedings were challenged on the issue of limitation as well as on the merits of the issues raised in the showcause notice. While passing the impugned order, the ld. AO concluded that the assessee is an ‘assessee in default’ in respect of remittances/payments made by it during the previous year 2012-13, to certain non-residents without deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act and raised a demand of Rs. 3,91,17,295/- towards tax and interest for which the details were indexed as Annexure-A to the impugned order.
Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising grounds of appeal both on the legal issue of limitation as well as on the merits of the case. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 3 submissions, both on the issue of limitation and on merits of the case which are reproduced in para no. 4 of the ld. CIT(A) order. The ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating on the matter dealt with the legal issue of limitation pursuant to Section 201(3) of the Act and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by holding that the limitation period of two (2) years from the end of Financial Year in which the fourth quarter return was filed, is applicable. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee filed the fourth quarter return in Form 27Q on 15/05/2013. The period of two years from the end of the Financial Year in which the TDS return/statement referred to in Section 200 of the Act ended on 31/03/2016. The ld. AO passed the order u/s 201(1)/(1A) on 31/03/2017. On these set of facts, the ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned order passed by the ld. AO on 31/03/2017 is barred by limitation while disposing off appeal in favour of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) did not examine and deal with the merits of the case, despite all the written submissions placed on record by the assessee as reproduced in the impugned order itself.
Aggrieved, the department is in appeal before this Tribunal raising as many as seven (7) grounds of appeal, all essentially relating to the issue of limitation as referred to in Section 201(3) of the Act and applicable to the order passed u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act.
Before us, the assessee is represented by CA. Bharathi Krishnaprasad and department by Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT. The ld. Sr. D/R laid certain basic facts of the case in respect of the submissions filed by the assessee for the four quarters (Qtr) of Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14:-
QTR FORM Statement receipt date Assessment Year Q1 27Q 14.07.2012 2013-14
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 4 Q2 27Q 13.10.2012 2013-14 Q3 27Q 12.01.2013 2013-14 Q4 27Q 15.05.2013 2013-14
The ld. Sr. D/R pointed out that the date of order is 31/03/2017, which is well within the limitation prescribed u/s 201(3) of the Act. From the paper book filed by the assessee placed on record, the ld. Sr. D/R pointed out the provisions of Section 201 of the Act, as amended from time to time and stated that the time line prescribed u/s 201(3) as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01/04/2010, needs to be considered in the present case. He pointed out that sub-Section (3) of Section 201 of the Act deals with and refers to tax deducted from a person resident in India and it nowhere deals with deduction of tax from non-resident persons.
8.1. He forcefully submitted that the time line prescribed of two years and six years in Section 201(3) are relevant in respect of residents only. When there is no time line prescribed under the Act, it is a settled position of law that a reasonable time has to be considered in absence of such a stipulation in the Act. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel vs. UOI [2016] 76 taxmann.com 256 (Del. HC) was referred to, which dealt with the similar issue of limitation in respect of the order passed u/s 201(1) of the Act, wherein a reasonable time of four (4) years was considered to be a reasonable time under the pre-amended provisions of Section 201.
8.2. It was submitted that once the law got amended and which prescribed a time of six (6) years from the end of the Financial Year in which the payment is made in respect of residents, it is appropriate to consider the same time line of six (6) years as reasonable time in respect of payments made to non-residents also. He further submitted that the time limit of two (2) years from the end of Financial Year in which the statement is filed as
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 5 referred to u/s 200 of the Act as prescribed u/s 201(3)(i) does not apply in the present case.
8.3. The ld. Sr. D/R apprised the Bench with the provisions of Section 200 of the Act to demonstrate that this does not apply in the case of the assessee since there is no deduction of tax at source done on the payments made by the assessee to the non-residents. He stated that when it is a case where no TDS has been done and no such reporting in the Statements so filed, there is no question of any statement which can be said to be filed by the assessee in respect of these payments made to the non-residents. The ld. Sr. D/R pointed out sub-Section (3) of Section 200 and contended that this sub- Section deals with a situation where an assessee who has deducted any sum in accordance with the provisions of chapter XVII, then after paying the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government shall prepare such statements for such period in a prescribed form and deliver the same to the prescribed authority. He further referred to the proviso to sub-Section (3) which deals with filing of correction statement for rectification of any mistake or to add, delete or update the information furnished in the statement delivered under sub-Section (3).
8.4. Thus, summarizing his contention, he forcefully submitted that in the present case, the ld. AO has noticed in Form 15CA/CB that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on certain remittances/payments made by the assessee to the non-residents. Hence, there is no question of there being a statement delivered by the assessee in respect of the impugned remittances and, therefore, the limitation prescribed u/s 201(3)(i) of two (2) years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed as referred u/s 200 of the Act, cannot be applied. He, thus, strongly opposed the finding given by the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal by taking resort to the limitation of two years prescribed u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act. The ld. Sr. D/R
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 6 thus, submitted that the limitation of six years as prescribed u/s 201(3)(ii) of the Act ought to be considered as a reasonable time for passing the order u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. According to him, by considering this limitation, the Assessing Officer is still within the powers and provisions of the Act to pass the impugned order.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly relied on the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) who had rightly applied the limitation of two years in holding that the impugned order of the ld. AO is barred by limitation since it is a case where the assessee has filed its statements for all the four quarters in the prescribed Form 27Q. He further pointed out that the instant case is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Chennai in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1795 & 1141/Chny/2017 for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2009-10 and ITA No. 1210/Chny/2016 for Assessment Year 2008-09, vide consolidated order dt. 06/09/2019. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to para 6 of the said order which is extracted for ready reference:-
In view of the above, when the assessee filed statement under Section 200 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was expected to pass order within two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement was filed. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the language employed by Parliament in sub-section (3) to Section 201 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot pass any order after expiry of two years before 01.10.2010. In this case, admittedly, the orders were passed beyond the period of two years after the date on which the statement under Section 200 of the Act was filed for the respective assessment year. Therefore, orders passed by the Assessing Officer are barred by limitation as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, these orders cannot stand in the eye of law. In view of the above, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the tax and interest demand for all the assessment years are deleted.
9.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to TDS statements (Form 27Q) of the four quarters filed by the assessee forming part of the
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 7 paper book. One such statement for quarter 1 is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
9.2. During the course of hearing, the ld. Sr. D/R referred to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Chennai in the case of M/s. Tenth Planet Technologies P. Ltd. in ITA No. 2497/Chny/2018; Assessment Year 2010-11, order dt. 26.08.2021, wherein the period of six years from the end of the Financial Year relevant to the year under appeal was considered as reasonable for passing an order u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. In this respect, the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought on record that a Miscellaneous Application (MA)
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 8 was filed by the revenue in this case vide M.A. No. 124/Chny/2020 wherein it was dismissed by holding that the order was not passed within a reasonable time by the Assessing Officer as it was passed almost after six years. Accordingly, per ld. Counsel of the assessee, a period of six years is a reasonable time for the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 201(1)/(1A) in respect of payments made to non-residents by the resident assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of material on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case laws cited, we at the outset note that provisions of Section 201 of the Act have been amended from time to time. Firstly, by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/04/2010. On second occasion, by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2010. This section was again amended by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/10/2014. We note that the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2012 is relevant for the issue raised in the appeal before us.
10.1 Before adverting on the issue in hand, let us first understand the law on the limitation prescribed u/s 201 as contained in sub-Section (3) of the Act, which is reproduced as under:-
“(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry of-
(i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed:
(ii) six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case:
Provided that such order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before the 3 1st day of March, 2011
[emphasis supplied]
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 9 10.2. From a plain reading of the sub-section, it is noted that the time limit prescribed in Clauses (i) & (ii) pertain to default for failure to deduct full or any part of the tax from the person resident in India. This sub-Section does not prescribe in any explicit terms, any timeline in respect of non-residents. Further, Clause (i) of sub-Section (3) prescribes the time limit of two years for passing an order by the Assessing Officer under sub-Section (1) from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed as referred to in Section 200 of the Act. A period of six years has been prescribed for cases other than covered by sub-clause (i), for passing an order by the Assessing Officer under sub-Section (1) from the end of the financial year in which the payment is made by the resident.
10.3. Ld. CIT(A) has made a reference to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Chennai in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation - 11(1), Chennai, reported in [2016] 71 taxmann.com 66 (Chennai - Trib.), wherein the time limit available to the Assessing Officer to pass order u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act has been considered at two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement referred in Section 200 was filed. On perusal of para 6.1 of the said decision, it is noted that the contention before the Co-ordinate Bench was in relation to the proviso to Section 201(1) since the financial year involved was 2007-08. Para 6.1 from the said order is reproduced as under:- “6.1. Now, the contention of the assessee’s counsel is that since the financial year involved herein is 2007-08, which is commencing from First April, 2007 and ending on 31.03.2008, as such the proviso to section is applicable and the order u/s 201(1) and the order u/s. 201(1A) shall be passed on or before March 31st day of 2011. According to the ld. A.R., in this case the order u/s. 201 was passed on 28.03.2014, which is bad in law and also time barred.”
10.4. Thus, the Co-ordinate Bench while considering the limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed, gave its decision vis-a-vis proviso to Section 201(3), financial year being 2007-08.
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 10 Facts of the present case before us are different since the financial year involved is 2012-13, not covered under the proviso to Section 201(3) of the Act.
10.5. Further, ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Tech Mahindra Ltd. vs. ITO, IT Circle-1, Mumbai [2018] 96 taxmann.com 357 (Mum) which also deals with financial year 2007-08 wherein proviso to Section 201(3) applies. Facts of the present case being different, this decision does not apply in the present case. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune in the case of Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 466 (Pune), wherein the facts relate to deduction of tax at source from payments made to residents and not the non-residents.
10.6 In respect of contentions relating to non-applicability of Section 201(3) for payments made to non-residents, there is no dispute that the said sub- Section does not provide limitation in respect of deduction of tax for payments made to non-residents. However, various Hon’ble courts have dealt with this issue to hold that for passing an order u/s 201(1)/(1A) deeming the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ for non-deduction of tax from payments to non-residents, it can be passed within reasonable time in absence of stipulation of any time limit in Section 201. Such reasonable time has been considered to be reasonable in the range of four to six years through various judicial pronouncements. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi HC), wherein it has been held as under:- “IT/ILT: For passing an order u/s 201(1) deeming an assessee as "assessee in default" for non-deduction of TDS from payments to non-residents, show cause notices need to be issued to them within reasonable time in the absence of stipulation of any time limit in section 201. Income-Tax Department's argument
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 11 of administrative convenience cannot be accepted to allow action without any time limit as that would expose tax deductors to the onerous responsibility of maintaining books and documents for an uncertain period of time”
10.7. In absence of any specific stipulation of limitation for the non- residents but based on the judicial precedents discussed above, when the limitation of six years as stipulated in section 201(3)(ii) is considered, all the impugned payments made by the assessee to the non-residents pertain to financial year 2012-13, the limitation for passing the impugned order u/s 201(1)/(1A) expired on 31.03.2019. The impugned order by ld. AO is passed on 31.03.2017, which according to the ld. Sr. D/R is within the limitation and holds the field.
10.8. However, when the limitation of two years as stipulated in section 201(3)(i) is considered, as referred in section 200, the statements in Form 27Q for Quarter 1, 2 and 3 were filed in the financial year 2012-13 and for Quarter 4, in FY 2013-14. Accordingly, the limitation for passing the impugned order u/s 201(1)/(1A) expired on 31.03.2016. The impugned order is passed on 31.03.2017, which according to the ld. Counsel of the assessee, is beyond the limitation and has been rightly held to be barred by limitation by the Ld CIT(A).
10.9. Thus, the moot point here to be considered is, can the limitation of two years mentioned in section 201(3)(i) be applied to hold the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act as barred by limitation when the assessee has delivered the statements referred to in Section 200 of the Act? In the present case there is no dispute as to the delivery of statements for all the four quarters of financial year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14 in Form 27Q {tabulated supra}, status detail of one such statement has been reproduced hereinabove.
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 12
At this juncture, further dwelling on the law, it is worthwhile to refer to the provisions of Section 200 of the Act which deals with the duty of person deducting tax. Section 200 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
“(1) Any person deducting any sum in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs.
(2) Any person being an employer, referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall pay, within the prescribed time, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. (2A) In case of an office of the Government, where the sum deducted in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or tax referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 has been paid to the credit of the Central Government without the production of a challan, the Pay and Accounts Officer or the Treasury Officer or the Cheque Drawing and Disbursing Officer or any other person, by whatever name called, who is responsible for crediting such sum or tax to the credit of the Central Government, shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority, or to the person authorised by such authority, a statement in such form, verified in such manner, setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed.
(3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed:
Provided that the person may also deliver to the prescribed authority a correction statement for rectification of any mistake or to add, delete or update the information furnished in the statement delivered under this sub-section in such form and verified in such manner as may be specified by the authority.
11.1. From the reading of Section 200 of the Act, we note that sub-section (1) of section 200 deals with payment of the tax deducted within the prescribed time. Sub-section (2) deals with payment of tax deducted u/s 192(1A) of the Act. Sub-Section (2A) deals with the case of the officer of the Government in respect of sum deducted u/s 192(1A) of the Act. Sub-Section (3) is relevant to the issue in hand before us. It says that where any person has deduced any sum, shall after paying the tax so deducted to the credit of central government, prepare statements in the prescribed from and deliver the same to the prescribed Income Tax Authorities, within the prescribed time by furnishing such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 31A of the
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 13 Rules provides for Form 27Q in respect of statement mentioned in sub- Section (3).
11.2. From the perusal of the statement details filed by the assessee and one of such statement details reproduced hereinabove, it is noted that these do not provide an insight to understand whether the transactions alleged by the Assessing Officer on which tax has not been deducted at source as required u/s 195 of the Act, have been reported in the statements filed by the assessee in Form 27Q. The documents titled as ‘statement details’ placed in the paper book, shows only the status of TCS/TDS statements. From these ‘statement details’ which give only the status of filing of Form 27Q, it is noted that there are certain legends mentioned therein which describe the statement type and status.
11.3. In these ‘statement details’, there is one statement type mentioned as “Correction/(C3)”: type of correction statement which can update deductor (excluding TAN) and/or challan and/or deductee details. This statement type suggests that assessee is given an option to file correction statement wherein deductee details can be updated at a later point of time, if such a need arises.
11.4. In the present case before us, it is noted in the impugned order of ld. AO at para 2.1 that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 21/01/2013 to verify and examine why TDS has not been deducted on alleged and impugned remittances made to non-residents by the assessee. It is also noted in the impugned order of the ld. AO that summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued on Senior Vice President of the assessee whose statements were recorded on oath on 24/01/2013, 28/01/2013 & 08/02/2013. These facts suggest that the
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 14 assessee was in the knowledge of the issue arising from the survey to show cause, non-deduction of tax at source on the remittances made to non- residents. Having such a knowledge, there was a facility available as stated above with the assessee to file a correction statement as “Correction / (C3)” by furnishing the details of deductees in respect of the remittances made to non-residents.
11.5. From the documents placed on record, it is difficult to discern whether the details of deductees in respect of remittances made to non- residents without deduction of tax at source formed part of the statements filed by the assessee. The statement so filed in Form 27Q and placed on record can be said to be valid statements in respect of the transactions which have been reported in the said statements. Making reference to these statements in respect of those transactions which have not been reported in them and embarking upon the limitation of two years prescribed in section 201(3)(i) of the Act by merely claiming that statement is filed, does not persuade us to accept such a contention made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.
We are of the view that the limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed should be reckoned and applied in the case of non-residents when the details of remittances made to the non-residents are reported in the statements so delivered by the assessee. If and only if, these statements as referred in Section 200, contain the details of the non-residents deductees, can be said to be valid statements for application of limitation of two years referred in Section 203(1)(i) of the Act. We find that such a view can be taken only after verification of the statements delivered in Form 27Q to the prescribed Income Tax Authority.
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 15 12.1. Since there is no such explicit mention in the material placed on record about this verifiable fact of inclusion of details of transactions relating to remittances made to non-residents on which the Assessing Officer alleged that there is no deduction of tax at source as required u/s 195 of the Act, we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) who shall examine and verify himself or cause such examination and verification from the Assessing Officer as dealt in Section 250(4) of the Act, to ascertain the inclusion of the impugned transactions of remittances made to non-residents by the assessee in the said statements.
12.2. There are two possible scenarios which may arise upon such examination and verification – i. If it is found that the delivered statements include the details relating to the remittances made to the non-residents, the limitation of two years as prescribed u/s 201(3)(i) shall apply to the impugned order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 201(1)/(1A) dated 31/03/2017 which will render it as barred by limitation and rest the matter, then and there. ii. However, if such examination and verification reveals otherwise, then the limitation mentioned in section 201(3)(ii) of the Act will apply making the order passed by the ld. AO u/s 201(1)/(1A) within the said limitation. In such a case, since merits of the case have not been dealt by the Ld. CIT(A) despite submissions placed on record by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) shall deal with the merits of the case in accordance with the applicable law by considering the meritorious submissions already on record and dispose off the appeal by a speaking order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Needless to say, if this situation dealt herein (ii) arises, the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further
ITA No. 2139/CHNY/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 16 submissions as it deem fit. We are of the considered view that in this situation, the ld. CIT(A) has to reconsider the issue on merit while passing the appellate order.
12.3. Since the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in terms of findings and observations made hereinabove, we are not expressing any view on the merits of the case so as to limit the appeal procedure. The observations made hereinabove by us in remanding the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) will not impair or injure the case of the revenue nor will it cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee on the merits of the case. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27th May, 2022 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (GIRISH AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Kolkata, Dated 27/05/2022 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु� अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय �ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर 5. , , ������ /DR,ITAT, Chennai गाड� फाईल /Guard file. 6.