← All Phrases

“non-resident”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(30) / Section 6 / ITR Forms3,736 judgments

The decision most relied on for non-resident is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), cited in 663 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non-resident

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Judgments citing non-resident

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3625/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

implicit that both the Nepali citizens were not residents for the purpose of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.30. The sums deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3624/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

implicit that both the Nepali citizens were not residents for the purpose of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.30. The sums deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3623/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

implicit that both the Nepali citizens were not residents for the purpose of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.30. The sums deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3368/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

implicit that both the Nepali citizens were not residents for the purpose of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.30. The sums deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

provisions of Section 5 and 9(1)(vii) of the Act clearly mentions that taxability of payment of consideration by a resident assessee to non-resident assessee where the purpose of earning and the profit derived in India has to be taxed at source. 9. The Ld. AR relied upon

M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 711/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

provisions of Section 5 and 9(1)(vii) of the Act clearly mentions that taxability of payment of consideration by a resident assessee to non-resident assessee where the purpose of earning and the profit derived in India has to be taxed at source. 9. The Ld. AR relied upon

Jaymitra Suna, Sambalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 820/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.820/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh NairFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

Delhi dated 05.02.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual and non-resident Indian deriving income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. No regular return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 under the provisions

Egberts India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1369/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1369Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Egberts India Private Limited Ito बनाम/ Corporate Circle-2(1) 19, (Old No.11), Nuewry Grandeur B Block, Vs. Chennai. Anna Nagar S.O., Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-1410-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

paid consultancy charges of Rs.93.78 Lacs to one of the directors, Shri. S. Sridharan who acted as resident director. The other two directors were non-residents. Shri S. Sridharan had several years of experience in related business and engaged in day-to-day business and management and development ... this year. It could also be seen that the payee director is sole resident director in India and the other two directors are non-resident and therefore, he would have greater role to play. During this year, the project of the assessee has started generating revenues and the payee director

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ag, Mumbai

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

assessment order contrary to directions of DRP is invalid. Additional ground no. 3 filed on 1 7 January 2024 4. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated and tax resident of Germany. During the relevant previous year assessee has derived income by way of royalty and fee for technical ... categories: - The first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. - The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

assessment order contrary Additional ground no. 3 to directions of DRP is invalid. filed on 1 7 January 2024 4. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated and tax resident of Germany. During the relevant previous year assessee has derived income by way of royalty and fee for technical ... categories: - The first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. - The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore

ITA 811/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.811/Bang/2024 & Sp No.22/Bang/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

IT(IT)A No.811/Bang/2024 & SP No.22/Bang/2024 KDDI Corporation, Japan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

ITA 379/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan &For Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal, the Appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed, and Justice rendered. 2. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Individual and for the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 31/07/2014 vide acknowledgement number 301213670310714 declaring a total ... lapses in the valuation report furnished as the same was obtained from an independent valuer. 2.16 He submitted that the Assessee being a non-resident, did not contest the said addition only to bring a quietus to the affairs and to avoid protracted litigation with the department. He therefore submitted

Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, India

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/BANG/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

During the financial year 2007-08, the Assessee had issued 13,50,00,000 CCDs having face value Rs. 10/- each to GBL, a non-resident company, carrying an interest rate of 15.75%. In its transfer pricing study, the Assessee benchmarked the payment of interest towards CCDs by using Comparable

ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha Breco Limited, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8542/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Usha Breco Ltd, Circle-27(1), New 701, Surya Kiran Delhi Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacu4023E

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Sigh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 68

Credit claimed in ITR is less than tax credit available in 26AS 5. Large outward remittances to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company 6. Mismatch between income/receipt credited to P & I account considered under heads of income and income from heads of income other

Syed Gulam Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 69

ought to have appreciated the fact that the section 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of a Non-resident and the Ld. A.O erred in making addition of 22,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 19. The Ld. A.O erred in contending that ... Syed Gulam Mohiuddin 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee Shri Syed Gulam Mohiuddeein is a non-resident, did not file his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18. The assessee is residing in Saudi Arabia for the financial year 2016-17 relevant

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Madurai vs. Veeranan Ramu, Madurai

ITA 877/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.876/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.877/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit Shri Veeranan Ramu बनाम/ International Taxation, 1/427, Vellalur Village, Madurai. Vellalur, Melur Taluk Vs. Madurai-625 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ayfpr-6051-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA)- Ld.AR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 3. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The assessee being non-resident Indian purchased a certain property from a family, the details whereof has been tabulated on page nos. 2 & 3 of the assessment order

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Madurai vs. Veeranan Ramu, Madurai

ITA 876/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.876/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.877/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit Shri Veeranan Ramu बनाम/ International Taxation, 1/427, Vellalur Village, Madurai. Vellalur, Melur Taluk Vs. Madurai-625 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ayfpr-6051-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar (CA)- Ld.AR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 3. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The assessee being non-resident Indian purchased a certain property from a family, the details whereof has been tabulated on page nos. 2 & 3 of the assessment order

Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

ITA 192/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri E.V. Sri Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

amount transferred to the entities attracted disallowance. 20. It was pleaded before the learned DRP that there was no profit element to the non-resident vendors on the salary cost reimbursable by the assessee, and these payments were merely reimbursement of salary expenses of employees are seconded and, therefore, there ... ACIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 77 and Bharti Airtel Ltd., vs. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 223 (Delhi – Trib) and reached a conclusion that when a non-resident receives certain amounts fall in the category of FTS and there is no FTS clause in India-Thailand DTAA, such receipts have

Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi, Visakhapatnam vs. Incomw Tax Officer (Ward International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.404, Sitara Enclave Ward (International Opp.Amg Hospital Taxation) Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Augpm0457M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 148

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2 I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2024, A.Y.2015-16 Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi, Visakhapatnam 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual and during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had sold immovable property bearing Document No.3645/2014 and got it registered on 09.06.2014 with

ACIT, Chennai vs. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 47/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Chny/2024 & Ita No.48/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 9

commission paid without deduction of tax at source. 6. The CIT(A) failed to recognize that the payment of a marketing fee to a non-resident is only for the purpose of managing the assesse company's sales affairs outside India, and thus the payment for the purpose of rendering ... non- residents, and in any case, it was not open for the assesse to conclude suo-moto that the payments made to non-residents are not chargeable to tax as the proper course of action for the assesse would be to make an application u/s, 195(2) to the concerned