DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAKESH ANAND, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 DCIT Circle 30(1), Vs. Sh. Rakesh Anand, New Delhi. 3791, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. PAN: ADAPA 4699 L ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr DR. Respondent by : Shri Jmesh Kuntal CA Date of hearing : 11/05/2016. Date of order : 27/05/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:

This is revenue’s appeal against the order dated 07.05.2013, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi, relating to A.Y. 2010-11.

“3.2 Assessee offered his explanation vide letter dated 15,03.2013 as follows (relevant portions reproduced): "We would like to reiterate the fact that the commission has been paid to a non-resident commission agent on the export sales for the services rendered by way of searching prospective foreign' buyers/clients. The commission agent is a non-resident and he has rendered all the services regarding our export sale out of India and payments made directly to him outside India. The CBDT by its recent circular No.7 dated 22.1 0.2009 has withdrawn its earlier circulars No. 23 dated: 23.07.2009, 163 dated 29.05.1975 and 786 dated: 7.02.2000. The main issue is whether the commission made to overseas agents, who are non- resident entitles, and who render services only at such particular place, is assessable to tax. Section 195 of the Act very clearly speaks that unless the income is liable to be taxed in India, there is no obligation to deduct tax. Now, in order to determine whether the income could be deemed to be accrued or arisen in India, section 9 of the Act is the basis. This section, in our opinion, does not provide scope for taxing such payment because the basic criteria provided in the section is about genesis or accruing or arising in India, by virtue of connection with the property in India, control and management: vested in India, which are not satisfied in the present cases. Under these circumstances Withdrawal of earlier circulars issued by the CBDT has no assistance to the issue in the subject in any way, in disallowing such expenditure. An overseas agent of Indian exporter operates in his own 'country and no part of his income arises in India and his commission is usually remitted directly to him and therefore the same is not received by him or on his behalf in India and such an. overseas agent is not liable to income-tax in India on these commission payments. The above view is fortified by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs, Toshoku Limited reported in 125}TR 525. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Toshuku Ltd. 125 ITR has held that the commission earned by the Non-Residents for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to be income which had accrued or arisen in India in terms of see. 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that no operations were carried out in India. It is also pertinent to note that the section 195 of the Act has to be read along with the charging sections 4,5 and 9 of the Act These are the observations made 1n the judgment of Apex Court in the case of GE India vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456, for the proposition that provisions relating to deduction of tax applies only to those sums which are chargeable to tax under the Income-Tax Act Hence, no. tax is deductible under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently the expenditure on export commission payable to non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure and the same is outside rigors of the section 40(la) of the Act Very importantly this payment does not also fall within the ambit of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act\ as the services under consideration is not for any technical service rendered. It is only for facilitation of the sales of the assessee outside India. In CIT v. Sara International Ltd. [2008J 8DTR (Del)] 309, the Delhi High Court has interpreted the provisions of the said section in the context of Section 194J, wherein at Page No.311 it has been stated as follows: "The expression fees for technical services means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head 'salaries.' Authority on Advance Ruling in the case of Saphi Projects Pvt Ltd. 315 ITR 374(AAR) has held that there could possibly be no controversy that the agent would not be rendering services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature and therefore the liability of tax cannot be fastened on it by invoking the provisions dealing with fee for technical services. On the basis of above submissions and judgments it may be concluded: a) That withdrawal of CBDT circulars does not affect the situation ACIT Cir 30(1), New Delhi b) That the AAR decision in the case of SKF Boilers and Driers Pvt. Ltd is not applicable in our case: c) That the commission payment do not fall in the category of technical or consultancy services.

“1. "Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,97,345/- made by the AO for contravention of section 40(a)(i) on premise that commission payments to overseas agents/ non- residents do not attract provisions of TDS." 2. "Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct is not appreciating the CBDT circular No.7 12009 dated 20.10.2009 and the ratio of the decision of the AAR in the case of SKF Boilers & Drivers Pvt. Ltd. (AAR No. 983-984 of 2010) dated 22.02.2012 in which it has been held that export commission paid to non - resident agent is income deemed to accrue or arise in India, thereby attracting the provisions of section 40(a)(i) read with section 195 of the IT Act, 1961."

(a) Is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; or (b) Accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year.

6.1. Admittedly, the commission income has not been received in India by non-resident and, therefore, we have to examine whether the commission income could be said to have accrued or arise or could be deemed to have accrued or arose to non-resident in India. As per section 9(1)(i), the income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India is that which accrues or arises whether directly or indirectly, inter alia, through or from any business connection in India. Therefore, unless there is a business connection in India, it cannot be said that income is deemed to accrue or arise in India.

6.2. Admittedly there is no business connection in India as the entire services have been rendered outside India. Therefore, now we have to examine whether any income could be said to have accrued or arose to non- resident as per section 5(2) or not.

6.3. Admittedly the entire services have been rendered outside India and the moment orders were placed d on assessee by foreign buyers then the right to receive commission accrues in favour of assessee. This right, in our opinion, accrues in pursuance to service rendered and not when only the final order is executed from India. Therefore, in our opinion, no income accrued or arose in favour of non-resident commission agent in India. We are fortified in our view by the ratio of decisions in the following cases:

- Nidhi Exports (ITA no. 626/2012 dated 7.9.2012 (Delhi H.C); - CIT vs. Toshuku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC); and - GE India vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC). - 6.4. We, accordingly, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same.