9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 90 - HC - Income TaxRemand order - Tribunal ordered that issue regarding re-insurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers and TDS to be made have to be considered by the Assessing Officer based on DTAA - Held that - when materials, which were considered by the Officer are there before the Tribunal on the issue raised, even assuming for a moment that in the course of pendency of the appeals, amendments are effected retrospectively, touching on the very same issue in the context of the amendment provision, however, does not call for any remand, particularly for the reason that the Tribunal with all its wisdom is competent to go into the legal provision, which would govern the issue - Remand is not a power to be exercised in a routine manner and should be used sparingly as an exception only when the facts warranted such course of action - no material which necessitated the remand of the case to the Assessing Officer - Following the decision of GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of Power of Remand by ITAT 2. Remand without New Materials 3. Specific Directions for Remand 4. Non-Recording of Findings on Fresh Material 5. Unconsidered Issues by Tribunal Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exercise of Power of Remand by ITAT The primary issue was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) exercised its power of remand judiciously and in accordance with law. The court found that the ITAT had failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. The Tribunal remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer (AO) without specifying any fresh materials that necessitated such a remand. The court emphasized that remand should not be exercised routinely but sparingly and only when facts warrant such action. 2. Remand without New Materials The ITAT remanded the matters back to the AO even though no new materials had been presented. Both the assessees and the Revenue agreed that all materials were already before the lower authorities. The court noted that the Tribunal's decision to remand was based on an incorrect assumption that fresh materials were presented. The court highlighted that the Tribunal should have considered the issues on merits based on the existing materials. 3. Specific Directions for Remand The Tribunal remanded the matters without giving specific directions. The court criticized this approach, stating that the Tribunal should have provided clear instructions on what needed to be reconsidered by the AO. The lack of specific directions rendered the remand order ineffective and unjustified. 4. Non-Recording of Findings on Fresh Material The ITAT failed to record a finding on what fresh materials were produced before it. The court pointed out that the Tribunal's order did not mention any new documents that necessitated a remand. The Tribunal's view that the request of the assessees was more in the nature of a review was rejected by the court, as there was an apparent error on the face of the record. 5. Unconsidered Issues by Tribunal Certain issues raised by the assessees and the Revenue were left unconsidered by the Tribunal. The court directed the ITAT to address all issues raised by both parties comprehensively. This included considering the relevance of the retrospective amendment to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act after the Vodafone case. Conclusion: The court set aside the ITAT's order remanding the matters back to the AO. It directed the ITAT to reconsider the cases on merits based on the materials already available and the effect of the amended provisions. The court emphasized that the Tribunal should act with greater circumspection and provide clear directions when ordering a remand. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, and the matters were restored to the files of the ITAT for a full-fledged hearing on all issues raised.
|
