9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 995 - AT - Income TaxProceedings u/s 201 - Held that - The survey proceedings and assessment proceedings are two different and distinct proceedings . The letter dated 14-01- 2009 was in continuation to the information gathered on 29-12-2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that proceedings u/s 201 of the Act was initiated. A bare reading of Section 201 makes it clear that it is invoked as a consequence of failure to deduct or pay tax. Therefore, in our considered view, the information gathered during survey proceeding and on the basis of such information, if the AO finds that assessee was required to deduct tax and the assessee has not deducted the tax or has not paid the tax after deduction then he would be empowered to invoke the provisions of Section 201 of the Act by issuing show cause notice for initiation of proceedings u/s 201 of the Act. Hence, the point of time when the AO finds that the assessee was required to deduct tax and has not deducted or paid consequence thereof, he issues the show cause notice to the assessee would be starting point for reckoning limitation for the purpose of Section 201 of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the ground raised by the assessee and the same is hereby rejected. - Decided against assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the assessee to deduct tax on discounts extended to pre-paid distributors. 2. Verification of details provided by the assessee regarding filing of IT returns by deductees. 3. Applicability of Section 194H to the discounts allowed by the assessee. 4. Validity of the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Limitation period for passing the order under Section 201 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of the Assessee to Deduct Tax on Discounts Extended to Pre-paid Distributors: The primary issue was whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the discounts extended to its pre-paid distributors for the distribution of SIM cards and talk time. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these payments as commission and held the assessee liable under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the relationship with the distributors was on a principal-to-principal basis and not as agent-principal, thus Section 194H was not applicable. However, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been decided against the assessee by various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., which held that such discounts are indeed in the nature of commission and liable for TDS under Section 194H. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the assessee's liability to deduct tax on these discounts. 2. Verification of Details Provided by the Assessee Regarding Filing of IT Returns by Deductees: The CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify the factual correctness of the assessee's claim that the distributors had filed their returns of income, including the business income from the sale of prepaid products. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) did not have the power to set aside the issue for verification. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that as per Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, the CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment but not to set aside the issue for verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s direction for verification. 3. Applicability of Section 194H to the Discounts Allowed by the Assessee: The Tribunal reiterated that the discounts allowed by the assessee to its distributors were in the nature of commission, as previously decided by various High Courts. The Tribunal noted that the relationship between the assessee and the distributors was not of a principal-to-principal nature but rather of an agent-principal nature, making Section 194H applicable. The argument that the discount was not income in the hands of the distributors until further distribution was also rejected, as the High Courts had already ruled against this contention. 4. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee argued that the order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation as it was passed after one year from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal examined the timeline and found that the proceedings were initiated with a show cause notice issued on 05/10/2009, and the order was passed within the permissible time frame. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the initiation of proceedings should be reckoned from the date of the survey conducted on 29/12/2008, stating that survey proceedings and assessment proceedings are distinct. 5. Limitation Period for Passing the Order Under Section 201 of the Act: The Tribunal addressed the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the limitation period for passing the order under Section 201. The Tribunal clarified that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date when the AO issues a show cause notice for initiating proceedings under Section 201, not from the date of the survey. The Tribunal found that the AO had issued the show cause notice within the permissible period, and thus, the order was not barred by limitation. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings on the applicability of Section 194H and the liability to deduct tax at source on the discounts extended to pre-paid distributors. The Tribunal also clarified the limitation period for passing orders under Section 201, rejecting the assessee's contention that the proceedings were barred by limitation.
|
