BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION,UNITED STATES vs. ACIT CIRCLE-INTERNATIONA TAXATION 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI
Facts
Two assessees (UK and USA tax residents) provided engineering and procurement support services to Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) for its plants in Jamnagar SEZ. The Assessing Officer initially treated their receipts as Fee for Technical Services/Included Services (FTS/FIS) under DTAAs. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), however, directed the AO to tax these receipts primarily as business income attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) under DTAA Articles 6 & 7, and only protectively as FTS/FIS under section 44DA.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to implement the binding directions of the DRP by substantively taxing the receipts as FTS/FIS instead of business income attributable to PE. Relying on Section 144C of the Income Tax Act and judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such non-implementation renders the final assessment orders wholly without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio, as the AO is duty-bound to implement DRP directions in letter and spirit.
Key Issues
Whether the final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, failing to implement the binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), are valid or rendered void-ab-initio.
Sections Cited
Section 144C, Section 44DA, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153(3)B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-
per statutory mandate, the Assessing Officers are bound to
follow the directions of DRP. Non-implementation of the
directions issued by DRP, either consciously or due to non-
19 ITA Nos. 8904 & 8905/Del/2019; 795 & 796/Del/2021
application of mind by the Assessing Officers often put the
department in an embarrassing situation as the learned
counsels appearing for the Revenue find it difficult to defend
the action of the Assessing Officers. Such repeated instances
of non-implementation of directions of learned DRP by the
Assessing Officers expose lack of proper orientation and
training. We hope and expect that the authorities concerned
would look into this aspect and address the issue with the
seriousness it deserves. We leave the issue at that.
In the result, all the four appeals are allowed on this
limited issue.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) VICE-PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT
Dated: 31.01.2024 *aks/- & RK/-
20 ITA Nos. 8904 & 8905/Del/2019; 795 & 796/Del/2021