EBZ SE,GERMANY vs. ADIT- CPC, CPC- BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2353/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 October 2024AY 2019-20Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. Therefore, to adhere to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply without delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Germany-based foreign company, filed its income return declaring a total income and was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. An intimation was received from CPC/AO raising a demand for tax, surcharge, cess, and interest, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the tax demand, surcharge, cess, and interest without considering the assessee's claim under the India-Germany DTAA and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Gupta
For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Hearing: 09.07.2024Pronounced: 03.10.2024

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -56, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. A.O. has grossly erred in raising tax demand of Rs.1,17,571/-, which. The appellant crave lave to amend, alter, add or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal and the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive is subsequently confirmed by CIT(A). while do so, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in 2) computing surcharge and cess of Rs.97,131/- without giving due regard to Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA, which implies that Fee for technical services need to be taxed at a special rate of flat 10%. 3) charging surcharge and cess of Rs.97,1331/- by applying the provisions of the Act regardless of the fact that the DTAA provisions are more beneficial to the appellant. 4) charging interest u/s. 234B and 234C being consequential in nature. has no PE in India. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.09.2019, declaring total income at Rs.1,59,75,470/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee received an intimation from CPC/learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) dated 08.11.2020 where addition on sur charge of Rs.31,951/- and cess of Rs.65,180/- was made at a flat rate of 10% on the amount of tax computed thereby raising a demand of Rs.1,17,571/- along with interest charged u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act.

4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the impugned order on the ground that the CPC/ld. A.O. had failed to consider that the assessee was entitled to special rate of flat 10% on fees for technical services as per Article 12 of India DTAA and that no additional charges are to be levied beyond that.

5.

The ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 13.03.2024, upheld the order of the ld.CPC/ld.A.O. for the reason that inspite of several opportunity the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim and has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceedings.

6.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. the appellate proceeding.

8.

On the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice for the reason that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in hand on the merits of the case, since the assessee has not made compliance before the first appellate authority. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on its side and needless it is to say that sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be given to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →