9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2079 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment order passed u/s 144C - as per assessee the conditions prescribed for invoking the said provisions do not exist in the present case - HELD THAT - In the instant case the assessee herein is an eligible assessee. However there is no variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interests of the assessee. Hence the second condition prescribed in sec.144C(1) was not satisfied. Hence the approach of the AO in adopting the procedure prescribed in sec.144C of the Act is not in accordance with the mandate of law. We get support for our view from the decisions rendered by Chennai bench and Pune bench of Tribunal in the cases referred above. Hence the assessment order passed by the AO gets vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Application of tax rates under Section 115A(1)(a)(ii) versus the India-Cyprus Treaty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee contended that the AO was not right in law in invoking the provisions of Section 144C because the conditions prescribed for invoking the said provisions did not exist in the present case. Specifically, the assessee argued that there was no variation in the income or loss returned that was prejudicial to its interests, as required by Section 144C(1). The AO had not changed the income returned by the assessee but had proposed a higher tax rate, which the assessee argued did not constitute a "variation" in income. The Tribunal examined the scope of Section 144C(1) and referred to previous decisions, including those by the Chennai and Pune benches of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Tribunal noted that for Section 144C to apply, there must be a variation in the income or loss returned that is prejudicial to the interests of the assessee. In this case, the AO had merely proposed a higher tax rate without altering the quantum of income returned. The Tribunal concluded that the AO’s action did not satisfy the conditions of Section 144C(1), rendering the assessment order invalid. 2. Application of Tax Rates under Section 115A(1)(a)(ii) versus the India-Cyprus Treaty: The second issue involved the appropriate tax rate to be applied to the interest income earned by the assessee. The assessee, a tax resident of Cyprus, had invested in an Indian company and earned interest income, which it offered as business income in its return, computing tax at 10% as per Article 11(2) of the India-Cyprus Treaty. However, the AO proposed to compute tax at 20% under Section 115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act in the draft assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) initially rejected the assessee's objection to the draft assessment order but held that the provisions of Section 115A(1)(a)(ii) could not be applied in this case. The DRP directed the AO to compute tax at the normal rates applicable to foreign companies, which was 40% plus Education Cess and Surcharge. The AO passed the final assessment order accordingly. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into this issue in detail, as it quashed the assessment order on the primary legal ground that the procedure under Section 144C was incorrectly invoked. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's approach in adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 144C was not in accordance with the mandate of law, as there was no variation in the income or loss returned that was prejudicial to the interests of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to adjudicate other issues raised by the assessee due to the quashing of the assessment order. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10.04.2019.
|
