9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 163 for the assessment year. 2. Validity of the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 163 and the regular assessment on the agent for the assessment year 1968-69. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 163 for the assessment year The Income-tax Officer treated the assessee-company as the agent of the non-resident foreign company u/s 163 of the Income-tax Act and assessed the amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner canceled the assessment and the order u/s 163, finding no business connection between the assessee and the foreign company, and noting that the foreign company had already been assessed directly in India. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the order treating the assessee as an agent was rightly canceled. Issue 2: Validity of the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 163 and the regular assessment on the agent for the assessment year 1968-69 The Tribunal noted that the income assessed in the hands of the representative assessee was not included in the assessment of the non-resident at Calcutta. The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the assessment for 1968-69 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer has the power to assess the representative assessee for the income received on behalf of the non-resident and recover the tax from him. The Court stated that if an income is assessed under Chapter XV in the hands of a representative assessee, it cannot be assessed under any other provisions of the Act. The Court also highlighted that the assessment of the income of a non-resident through an agent must be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Income-tax Act. Additional Points: The Court discussed the fundamental principles of construing sections in Chapter XV of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the liability of the person who actually carries on the business to pay the tax on the income received, regardless of its destination or enjoyment. The Court also noted that the assessment of the income of a non-resident through an agent must be subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Conclusion: The Court declined to answer the questions referred to it, directing the parties to bear their respective costs. The judgment emphasized the need to consider whether the assessee had any business connection with the non-resident to treat him as an agent u/s 163, which the Tribunal had not addressed. The issue required fresh consideration.
|
