2017 (2) TMI 1411 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay - sufficient cause - delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal - reasons too vague and genera - Finance Manager, who was handling the tax matters, had resigned from the office during the month of February,2016 and did not hand over the relevant assessment order and other documents to the successor while relieving from the office of the petitioner causing delay - HELD THAT - As seen from the petition, filed by the assessee, the assessee has not mentioned the name of Finance Manager, who has received the impugned the assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. It is also not mentioned the date on which the Finance Manager was relieved from the duty and the reason on which he was not handed over the appeal documents to the assessee for further action. The reasons advanced by the assessee in its condonation petition are very vague and it was too general. The reasons advanced by the assessee cannot be considered as a reasonable one so as to condone the delay of 87 days. The approach of the assessee herein is very casual and requires no sympathy from our end, since he has not shown good and sufficient reasons to condone the delay.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of management fee as "fee for included services."
2. Interpretation of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
3. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Treatment of management fee as "fee for included services."
The appellant contested the treatment of the management fee as a "fee for included services." The dispute arose from the draft assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13, following the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP), Bangalore. The appellant argued against this characterization, raising concerns about the taxability of management services.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
The appellant also challenged the conclusion by the Assessing Officer that management services are taxable, disregarding the language in the India-US DTAA. The appellant sought to rely on the provisions of the DTAA to support their position regarding the tax treatment of the management services in question.

Issue 3: Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal
The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. The appellant attributed this delay to the resignation of the Finance Manager responsible for tax matters, who allegedly did not hand over the relevant assessment order and documents to the successor. However, the Tribunal found the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay to be vague and lacking specificity. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence and vigilance in adhering to timelines, ultimately dismissing the appeal as unadmitted due to the lack of a reasonable cause for condonation of the delay.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai adjudicated on the issues related to the treatment of management fees, interpretation of the India-US DTAA, and the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to the lack of a valid reason for the delay in filing, emphasizing the importance of diligence and adherence to procedural timelines in legal matters.