9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the order passed by the Tribunal. 2. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, whether the order passed by the Tribunal was required to be recalled, especially when there would be no change in the ultimate conclusion and decision arrived at by the Tribunal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Mistake Apparent from the Record The department argued that the Tribunal's order dated 30th September 1994 should be recalled due to a mistake apparent from the record. The department contended that the Tribunal's finding that the ship in question was not a 'ship' but a specially designed vessel was a new case made out by the Tribunal without giving the department an opportunity to argue this point. The department's original plea was that Article 9 of the Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) was not applicable because the ship did not operate in international traffic, not because it was not a 'ship'. The Tribunal's decision to classify the vessel as machinery rather than a ship was considered a vital issue for the department's appeal, and the department argued that they should have been given a reasonable opportunity to advance their argument on this issue. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel contended that the Tribunal had accepted the department's plea that Article 9 of the DTA was inapplicable, albeit on different reasoning. The Tribunal concluded that the hire charges paid to the non-resident were taxable in the U.K. under Article 7 of the DTA, as the non-resident did not have a permanent establishment in India. Issue 2: Recall of the Tribunal's Order The Judicial Member, R.K. Gupta, agreed with the department's contention that there was a mistake apparent from the record. He noted that the Tribunal's finding that the ship was not a 'ship' was not an issue raised by either party and was crucial for the department's appeal. Therefore, he concluded that the order dated 30th September 1994 should be recalled, irrespective of whether the final outcome would remain unchanged. In contrast, the Accountant Member, Mehta, disagreed with the Judicial Member. He argued that there was no mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2). He stated that even if the Tribunal's observations were deleted, there would be no change in the conclusion and decision already arrived at. Mehta emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on various grounds, including relevant provisions of the law and articles of the DTA, which led to the conclusion that the hire charges were not subject to tax in India. Therefore, he held that the miscellaneous application filed by the department was misconceived and devoid of merit. Third Member's Decision Due to the difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member, the matter was referred to a Third Member. The Third Member reviewed the records and written submissions and concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the department had been rendered infructuous. This was because the department had already accepted that the freight charges paid to the non-resident were not taxable in India, as per an order dated 8th February 1996 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I. The Third Member further held that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's decision was based on an appreciation of facts, evidence, and arguments presented by both parties. The Tribunal had correctly applied Article 7 of the DTA, concluding that the hire charges were not taxable in India. Therefore, the Third Member agreed with the Accountant Member's view that the Tribunal's order did not contain a mistake apparent from the record and dismissed the miscellaneous application. Final Order In accordance with the majority opinion, the miscellaneous application of the revenue was rejected. The Tribunal's order dated 30th September 1994 was upheld, and the case was not recalled for a rehearing.
|
