2002 (1) TMI 949 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271C.
2. Applicability of section 192 of the Income-tax Act to the appellant.
3. Validity of proceedings under section 271C against a non-resident company.
4. Consideration of the appellant as an "assessee" under section 2(7).
5. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 685.
6. Taxability of salary paid outside India for services rendered in India.
7. Liability of the Indian joint venture company versus the appellant company.
8. Factual and legal justification for the penalty.
9. Consideration of written submissions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
10. Impact of the joint venture on the obligation to deduct tax.
11. Interpretation of section 9(1) regarding the appellant's responsibility.
12. Views of tax authors on the liability of foreign employers.
13. Reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax.
14. Territorial applicability of the Income-tax Act.
15. Machinery provisions for implementing section 192 in the case of non-residents.
16. Absence of an order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) as a basis for penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271C:
The appellate tribunal scrutinized the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271C, which penalizes failure to deduct tax at source. The appellant argued that they were not liable to deduct tax under section 192, as they were a non-resident company with no permanent establishment in India. The tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the tax voluntarily after discussions with the Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which had assured them no penalty would be imposed.

2. Applicability of Section 192 of the Income-tax Act:
The tribunal examined whether the appellant could be considered a "person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'Salaries'" within the meaning of section 192. The appellant contended that they were not liable to deduct tax on salaries paid in Japan to employees deputed to work in India, as they did not have a business establishment in India. The tribunal noted that the payments made in Japan were for services rendered in India, making them taxable in India under section 9(1)(ii).

3. Validity of Proceedings under Section 271C Against a Non-Resident Company:
The appellant argued that as a non-resident company with no permanent establishment in India, they could not be subjected to proceedings under section 271C. The tribunal considered the appellant's claim that the Income-tax Act extends only to the whole of India and does not apply extraterritorially. However, the tribunal noted that Indian tax laws could have extraterritorial operations, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 183 ITR 43.

4. Consideration of the Appellant as an "Assessee" under Section 2(7):
The appellant contended that they could not be regarded as an "assessee" under section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act, and therefore, no valid proceedings could be initiated against them. The tribunal examined the definition and concluded that the appellant's liability to deduct tax at source was absolute, irrespective of their status as a non-resident.

5. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 685:
The tribunal analyzed the CIT(A)'s reliance on CBDT Circular No. 685, which pertains to foreign companies operating in India. The appellant argued that this circular did not apply to them as they were not operating in India. The tribunal found that the circular clarified the obligation of employers to deduct tax on salaries paid abroad for services rendered in India, which applied to the appellant's situation.

6. Taxability of Salary Paid Outside India for Services Rendered in India:
The tribunal considered the appellant's argument that salaries paid in Japan could not be taxed in India. The tribunal referred to the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii), which deems income earned for services rendered in India as accruing in India, making it taxable. Therefore, the appellant was liable to deduct tax on such payments.

7. Liability of the Indian Joint Venture Company versus the Appellant Company:
The appellant argued that the Indian joint venture company, Asahi India Safety Glass Limited, should be liable to deduct tax at source, not the appellant. The tribunal noted that both companies paid salaries to the expatriate employees, and the appellant's failure to deduct tax on the portion paid in Japan warranted the penalty.

8. Factual and Legal Justification for the Penalty:
The tribunal examined whether there was valid justification for initiating penalty proceedings. The appellant claimed that they acted in good faith and had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax. The tribunal considered the appellant's cooperation in paying the tax and the assurances received from the Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, concluding that there was no deliberate default.

9. Consideration of Written Submissions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider their written submissions adequately. The tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s order and found that the submissions were considered but not accepted due to the appellant's failure to establish a reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax.

10. Impact of the Joint Venture on the Obligation to Deduct Tax:
The appellant argued that their investment in the joint venture did not create an obligation to deduct tax on salaries paid in Japan. The tribunal noted that the joint venture's existence did not absolve the appellant of their responsibility under section 192.

11. Interpretation of Section 9(1) Regarding the Appellant's Responsibility:
The tribunal analyzed the correct interpretation of section 9(1) and concluded that the amounts received by employees outside India for services rendered in India were taxable in India. Therefore, the appellant was responsible for deducting tax at source on such payments.

12. Views of Tax Authors on the Liability of Foreign Employers:
The appellant cited tax authors' opinions that foreign employers were not liable to deduct tax on remuneration paid abroad. The tribunal disagreed, noting that the authors did not address the specific circumstances of the appellant's case, where the payments were for services rendered in India.

13. Reasonable Cause for Non-Deduction of Tax:
The tribunal considered whether the appellant had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source. The appellant argued that they acted in good faith and were under the impression that they were not liable. The tribunal found that the appellant's belief was not reasonable, given the clear provisions of the Income-tax Act and the circulars issued by the CBDT.

14. Territorial Applicability of the Income-tax Act:
The appellant contended that the Income-tax Act did not apply to them as a non-resident company. The tribunal reiterated that Indian tax laws could have extraterritorial operations and that the appellant's payments for services rendered in India were taxable.

15. Machinery Provisions for Implementing Section 192 in the Case of Non-Residents:
The appellant argued that the absence of machinery provisions for implementing section 192 in the case of non-residents indicated that they were not obliged to deduct tax. The tribunal disagreed, noting that the obligation to deduct tax was absolute and not dependent on the existence of specific machinery provisions.

16. Absence of an Order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) as a Basis for Penalty:
The appellant claimed that no order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was passed against them, and therefore, the penalty under section 271C was unjustified. The tribunal held that the absence of such an order did not preclude the imposition of a penalty for failure to deduct tax at source.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant's failure to deduct tax at source on salaries paid in Japan for services rendered in India warranted the penalty under section 271C. However, considering the appellant's cooperation and the assurances received, the tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of tax. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 3 crores was canceled, and the appeals were allowed.