Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
आदेश /O R D E R
PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)]-10, Hyderabad vide I.T.A.No.0101/CIT(A)-10/2014-15 dated 05.02.2016 for the assessment year 2009-10.
2 I.T.A. No.348 /Viz/2016 Vobilineni Surya Prasad, Kakinada 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the issue of non-deduction of tax at source and payments made to the non-residents and consequent levy of interest u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after called as ‘Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has purchased an immovable property of land admeasuring 399.71 sq.yards located at D.No.67-3-14/2, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist., from Shri Marla Veerabhadra Sastry (Shri M.V.Sastry), father and his two non resident sons namely Shri Marla Vishnu Tej and Shri Marla Krishna Tej residents of U.S.A. The sale transaction was represented by Shri M.V.Sastry as a General Power of Attorney (GPA)holder for both Shri Marla Vishnu Tej and Shri Marla Krishna Tej. Shri M.V.Sastry was given GPA by both the non-resident sons on 21.03.2008 to transact the impugned property jointly held by the father and the two sons. Shri M.V.Sastry entered into agreement with the assessee for sale of the property by sale deed dated 10.04.2008 and received the consideration of Rs.30,74,000/-. The entire sale consideration was paid into the bank account of Shri M.V.Sastry, father and the GPA holder bearing SB A/c No.26010, Syndicate Bank, Kakinada. On finding that the assessee had purchased the property from Shri M.V.Sastry and his two non-resident sons, the AO issued the notice u/s 201/201(1A) of the
3 I.T.A. No.348 /Viz/2016 Vobilineni Surya Prasad, Kakinada
Act, treating the assessee as assessee in default. In response to the notice, the assessee filed reply stating that the entire consideration of Rs.30,74,000/- was received by Shri M.V.Sastry, the resident individual including the shares of his two non-resident sons, and no payment was made to the non resident sons, thus there is requirement to deduct the tax at source u/s 195 of the Act and the assessee has not committed any default. However, not being convinced with the reply of the assessee, the AO treated the assessee, as assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act with respect to the shares of property of Shri Vishnu Tej and Shri Krishna Tej, the sons of Shri M.V.Sastry for Rs.20,49,330/- and accordingly passed the order u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act and raised the demand of Rs.6,71,230/- as under : 5.The tax deductible is worked out at 20.60% (treating the rate of TDS @20% on capital gains, education cess @2% and secondary and higher educational cess @1% and interest @1%p.m. and the details are as under : No. of months for Tax which interest u/s Interest u/s Amount deductible Total amount 201(1A) is payable 201(1A) @ 1% Paid (Rs.) @20.60% payable (Rs.) from April 2008 to p.m. (Rs.) Feb’ 2013 20,49,330 4,22,160 59 2,49,070 6,71,230
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
4 I.T.A. No.348 /Viz/2016 Vobilineni Surya Prasad, Kakinada
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee had purchased the property from Shri M.V.Sastry and his two non resident sons. Both the non resident sons have given the GPA to their father to handle the transaction. As per the GPA received by Shri M.V.Sastry, he has executed the sale deed, received the entire sale consideration and credited to his savings bank account. The payment was made to Shri M.V.Sastry who is resident individual. As per the provisions of section 195 of the Act, the payments made to the non residents suffers the deduction of tax at source. In the instant case the payment was made to the resident individual. The ITAT Visakhapatnam in the case of MVV Builders in I.T (TP)A Nos.3, 4 & 5/Viz/2014 opined that the payments directly made to non-residents towards purchase of property are in the nature of any other sum chargeable to tax under the Act and attracts TDS u/s 195 of the Act. In the instant case, there was no direct payment made by the assessee to the non-residents. The entire payment was made to the resident Indian who is also the father of the non residents. The revenue did not establish that the payment has gone to the non-
5 I.T.A. No.348 /Viz/2016 Vobilineni Surya Prasad, Kakinada
residents. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no case for invoking the provisions of section 195 of the Act. 6.1. On the similar facts, the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh ‘A’ Bench in Rakesh Chauhan Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) in ITA Nos. 752 & 753/Chd/2009 dated 27th November 2009 has taken the similar view. For ready reference, we extract relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bench which reads as under : “We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. We find in the case before us that the payment has been made to an individual resident in India i.e., Shri Paramjit Singh. This payment has been made in respect of purchase of land which belongs to the non-residents but the rights therein were assigned unequivocally to the power of attorney holder. The agreement has been entered into with the power of attorney holder and it is not a case that the payment has been made to Shri Paramjit Singh as a representative nominated by the non- resident. No doubt, when non-resident himself nominates a particular agent to whom payment should be made and pursuant to that direction, the assessee pays the sum to the agent so nominated, the provisions of s. 195 of the Act will apply, in view of this legal position set out by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in Narsee Nagsee & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 134 (Bom) but the facts before us are materially different in as much as by way of power of attorneys executed by the co-owners of the land, the rights in the land were admittedly assigned to the power of attorney holder. In these circumstances, the power of attorney holder was not merely acting as an agent of the non-residents to receive money but as a person who had the right to alienate the land by the virtue of rights vested in him by the power of attorneys signed by the coowners. There is no dispute that ShriParamjit Singh had the right to sell the land in question. The question of TDS under s. 195 will only arise when payment is made by the said ShriParamjit Singh to the actual owners of land sold. There is no ambiguity about the legal position insofar as in the question as to whether the payments to the resident can be covered by s. 195 of the Act. This section only applies to payments which are made to nonresidents. Under these circumstances, unless the Revenue can demonstrate that the resident has only acted as an agent to receive the money at the instruction of non-residents as was the case before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in NarseeNagsee& Co. (supra), the provisions of s. 195 cannot be invoked. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Tecumesh Products (I) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 13 SOT 489 (Hyd), has
6 I.T.A. No.348 /Viz/2016 Vobilineni Surya Prasad, Kakinada even held that when a payment is made to resident even on behalf of the non- resident, the provisions of s. 195 of the Act do not apply. If such be the esteemed views of a Co-ordinate Bench, it is futile to suggest that merely because payment is made to a resident, in respect of a property which has legal ownership by non-residents, the provisions of s. 195 of the Act will apply. In view of this discussion and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the payment of Rs. 13.12 lakhs made by the assessee to Shri Paramjit Singh, on the facts of this case cannot be considered as payment made to non-resident and, accordingly, s. 195 of the Act does not come into play. We, therefore, quash the impugned tax withholding demand and hold that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under ss. 201 and 201(1A) of the Act. The assessee gets relief accordingly.” 6.2. Since the facts are identical, respectfully following the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of Chandigarh, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and quash the order passed under section 201/201(1A) of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (िी.दुगाा राि) (धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धिशाखापटणम /Visakhapatnam ददिांक /Dated :10.10.2018 L.Rama, SPS
7 I.T.A. No.348 /Viz/2016 Vobilineni Surya Prasad, Kakinada
आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. अपीलधथी / The Appellant – Vobilineni Surya Prasad, D.No.67-3-14/2, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 2. प्रत्यार्थी / The Respondent– The DDIT (IT & TP), Visakhapatnam 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT&TP), Hyderabad 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad 5. धिभागीयप्रधिधिधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम /DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाडाफ़ाईल / Guard file
आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM