INDIA SOFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2355/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 August 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed that the fate of interest charged under section 201(1A) depends on the outcome of proceedings under section 201(1). Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the charging of interest under section 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax at source. The issues were identical to previous appeals filed by the assessee concerning section 201(1).

What were the issues?

Whether interest under section 201(1A) is leviable when the primary issue under section 201(1) is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IT/TP, Pune dated 17-07-2013 passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) common for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In all these four appeals the assessee has

2 ITA Nos.2353 to 2356/PUN/2016, A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12

assailed charging of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source.

Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and are arising from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are being disposed of vide this common order.

2.

Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that initially the assessee has filed combined appeals u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. However, to counter technical defect in filing of appeals, the assessee has filed separate appeals assailing charging of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for assessee pointed that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in set of appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1709 to 1712/PUN/2013 for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011- 12 decided on 24-01-2018 against the liability foisted under the provisions of section 201(1) has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer. Since, the appeals of assessee filed u/s. 201(1) have been restored to Assessing Officer, these set of appeals have to be decided in a similar manner.

3.

Mrs. Shweta Mishra representing the Department fairly admitted that these set of appeals filed u/s. 201(1A) of the Act and the earlier appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1709 to 1712/PUN/2013 (supra) against the order passed u/s. 201(1) have to be decided in similar manner.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the order of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee‟s own case in

3 ITA Nos.2353 to 2356/PUN/2016, A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12

appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1709 to 1712/PUN/2013 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench has restored the appeals of assessee in proceedings u/s. 201(1) to the file of Assessing Officer by following observations : “14. We heard both the parties on the issues, i.e. existence of PE, nature of payments as Royalty, rights given by the suppliers to the dealer, applicability of the provisions of section 195 of the Act etc. On hearing both the sides, we find there are some gaps relating to the facts which are required to be collected by the revenue authorities. (a) Regarding the right to sub-lease the software products, no finding of fact is gathered by the authorities that assessee has actually subleased the software products to various dealers/sub-dealers. Same is the case with regard to the right to modify the existing software received from the suppliers. Specific to the products received by the assessee for the customers in India, one need to examine if these products were infact subjected to modifications if any, to meet the specific requirements of the customers in India, before the payments are remitted to the suppliers. AO need to examine subleasing of the dealership rights to others as authorized by the agreement between the suppliers and the assessee. There is need for remanding the issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration. (b) Regarding the existence of PE for the payees abroad UK/USA, this issue has come up for the first time before the Tribunal. The fact on the existence of PE, according to Ld. AR for the assessee, is a matter both on facts and law. Therefore, this issue is rightly raised from the legal point of view and prayed for admitting the same and remanding to the file of AO for adjudication, if required. Considering the fact that this issue is also partly legal in nature, we are of the opinion that Ground No.3 and other related limbs of grounds of appeal are admitted and remanded to the file of AO for a decision before invoking the Article 12 and 13 of the respective DTAAs. Further, we notice that the above referred issues relating to PE are required to be adjudicated considering the judgmental law in existence as on date. There is need for remanding the issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration. (c) Regarding the nature of payments, whether it constitutes Royalty or otherwise, the same depends on facts of each case which are to be gathered by the AO in the proposed remand proceedings. There are divergent decisions in law on the said Royalty. If the remittances are relatable to mere receiving the software products from the suppliers and passing it on to the customers, playing the role of a dealer, we do not find there is any Royalty involved in these remittances. However, as argued by the Ld. DR for the Revenue, relying on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A), if there is exploitation of the software products obtained from the suppliers for commercial benefits of the assessee or its customers through the mechanism of subleasing or through mechanism of incorporating the modification in the said software to meet the demands of the customers, the conclusions may vary depending on the facts. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the AO should invoke the requisite verification and modification and application of law to the above referred issues and decide the issue afresh as per the law. AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purposes.”

4 ITA Nos.2353 to 2356/PUN/2016, A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12

5.

We agree with the submissions of ld. Counsel for assessee that the fate of interest charged u/s. 201(1A) will depend upon the outcome of the proceedings in section 201(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore all the four appeals to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions as in ITA Nos. 1709 to 1712/PUN/2013 (supra). The Assessing Officer shall decide all these issues in a composite manner after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 03rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated :03rd August, 2018 RK आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune 3. 4. The DIT (TP/IT), Pune ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →