2022 (3) TMI 1246 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - foreign assessee has earned interest income on rupee denominated bonds issued by an Indian company as specified under Section 194LD - respondents has doubted as to whether interest was received by the petitioner-assessee on rupee denominated bonds issued by an Indian company or a dollar denominated bonds issued by an Indian company - HELD THAT - A perusal of the paper book reveals that petitioner s case was selected for re-assessment on the ground that petitioner s case was flagged in the Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS). Consequently, there is a contradiction between the reason given by the respondent in the re-assessment notice and the defence taken by the respondent in the present proceeding. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court quashes the impugned order and notices mentioned hereinabove and permits the respondent-revenue to issue a fresh re-assessment notice in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order and notices under Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order and notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the interest income earned by a foreign assessee on rupee denominated bonds issued by an Indian company should be taxed at a concessional rate of five percent, and the foreign entity should not be required to file a return of income in India. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Nestle SA Vs. ACIT (IT), Circle (2)(2), New Delhi (2019) 417 ITR 213 (Delhi) to support this argument.

The respondent, represented by Mr. Sunil Agarwal, accepted the notice and provided an instruction from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, stating that the assessee had not furnished all necessary documents to substantiate its eligibility for the concessional rate under Section 194LD of the Income-tax Act. The instruction highlighted the importance of providing documents like the underlying debenture subscription agreement, FPI certification, TRC, and others for the assessment.

Mr. Agarwal, representing the Revenue, emphasized that the petitioner's case was selected for reassessment based on doubts regarding whether the interest was received on rupee denominated or dollar denominated bonds issued by an Indian company. However, a review of the case revealed that the petitioner's case was actually flagged in the Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS), leading to a contradiction between the reason given in the reassessment notice and the defense presented during the proceedings.

In light of the discrepancies identified, the Court quashed the impugned order and notices, allowing the revenue to issue a fresh reassessment notice in compliance with the law. The judgment left the rights and contentions of all parties open for further proceedings.