INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD COIMBATORE vs. MUTHU KISHORE, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1288/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 July 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not sustainable based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The specific exception cited by the Revenue was found to be not relevant to the present case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made by the AO. The assessee, a non-resident, had declared NIL income and claimed a refund. The AO made additions on account of dual employment and income from other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is sustainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, and if the exceptions provided in the circular apply to the present case concerning double taxation avoidance agreements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 16.07.2024Pronounced: 24.07.2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1288/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Muthu Kishore, v. International Taxation Peelikampati, Soorianallur, Ward, Thayampalayam, Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 638 703. [PAN: BLOPK-4850-Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Fouad Zubair, CA सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the revenue is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai - 16, for the assessment year 2018-19, vide order dated 16.02.2024.

2.

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee, in view of the specific condition of the India-Sweden DTAA,

:-2-: ITA. No: 1288/Chny/2024 under which the assessee is not eligible to claim relief under article 15(1) since the assessee being a non-resident. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the benefit to the assessee ignoring the decision of the Coordinate bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dennis Victor Rozario v. DDIT in dated 06.01.2017.”

3.

The assessee is a non-resident individual filed his return of Income on 06.08.2018 and revised return of income for AY 2018-19 on 29.03.2019, declared an income of Rs.NIL and claimed a refund of Rs.5,43,003/-, which was deducted from Salary from IBM India Pvt Ltd and Interest Income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment to examine the claim of high refund under CASS and issued statutory notices to the assessee and concluded the assessment by passing an order U/s.143(3) on 12/04/2021 by making the following additions :

(i) Amount assessable in India on account of dual employment exercised by the assessee Rs.9,07,034/- (ii) Income from other sources Rs.7,00,000/- Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

:-3-: ITA. No: 1288/Chny/2024 4. The ld.CIT(A) considering the details and documents furnished by the assessee, deleted the additions made by the AO by passing the order dated 16/02/2024 as detailed below : (i) the income is offered to tax in other contracting state, where the services were rendered and the other contracting state established its right to taxation by of residence Rs.8,87,834/- (ii) Assessee has explained source and creditworthiness of the receipt Rs.7,00,000/- The Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.19,200/- claimed U/s.10(14)(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is before us.

5.

The ld.DR stated that this appeal is filed by the revenue is based on the exceptions given in the circular issued by CBDT vide No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 for monetary limits.

6.

We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that, the exceptions provided in CBDT vide No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 vide 3.1 (l)(ii) is not relevant to the present case on hand which is given below :

:-4-: ITA. No: 1288/Chny/2024 “3.l. In respect of litigation arising out of disputes related to TDS/TCS matters in both domestic and International taxation charges: i. Where dispute relates to the determination of the nature of transaction such that the liability to deduct TDS/TCS thereon or otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise.” Hence, the appeal filed by the revenue is not sustainable based on the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for preferring the appeal before Tribunal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →