9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 144 read with sections 147 and 163 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Procedural fairness in issuing notices under sections 163 and 148. 3. Legality of double taxation and simultaneous assessments on the principal and agent. 4. Deletion of interest charged under section 234B. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 144 Read with Sections 147 and 163: The primary contention was the validity of the order dated 28-3-2002 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with sections 147 and 163. The assessee argued that the notice under section 163 was never received, and the order was passed ex parte without allowing any opportunity to the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice. The tribunal held that the order passed under section 163 without granting a meaningful opportunity to the assessee is bad in law. The tribunal emphasized that section 163 requires a mandatory opportunity of being heard before passing an order, which was not provided in this case. 2. Procedural Fairness in Issuing Notices Under Sections 163 and 148: The notice under section 163 was issued on 5-2-2002 to the Indian address, which was returned undelivered, and allegedly to the London address, which the assessee claimed was never received. The tribunal noted the absence of documentary evidence supporting the issuance of the notice to the London address. The notice under section 148 was received by the assessee on 27-3-2002, but the ex parte order was passed on 28-3-2002 without waiting for the seven-day period given for filing the return of income. The tribunal concluded that the ex parte assessment was framed without allowing any opportunity to the assessee and before the expiry of the period given for filing the return, rendering it unsustainable in law. 3. Legality of Double Taxation and Simultaneous Assessments on the Principal and Agent: The tribunal addressed the issue of double taxation, where the same income was assessed substantively in the hands of Valentine and protectively in the hands of the assessee-company. It was highlighted that the substantive assessment in the case of Valentine was upheld by the CIT(A), making the protective assessment in the case of the assessee-company unjustifiable. The tribunal referenced various High Court judgments, including CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Devi and CIT v. Ramchandraji Maharaj Ka Bada Mandir, which held that when the substantive assessment becomes final, the protective assessment must be vacated. The tribunal quashed the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), stating that the same income cannot be assessed simultaneously in the hands of the non-resident and the agent. 4. Deletion of Interest Charged Under Section 234B: The departmental appeal pertained to the deletion of interest charged under section 234B. Since the tribunal quashed the relevant orders while deciding the assessee's appeal, the departmental appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed on that ground. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) under sections 144, 147, and 163, and dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of interest under section 234B. The tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the prohibition of double taxation, ensuring that the same income is not taxed twice in different hands.
|
