9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. Taxability of the amount received by the non-resident assessee from Indian hotels. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 Contention by Assessee: The learned counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment for the assessment year 1997-98, arguing that the notice issued u/s 142(1) was barred by limitation. The counsel contended that although there is no express provision for the period of limitation for issuing a notice u/s 142(1), it can be deduced from the scheme of the Act that such notice cannot be issued after the end of the assessment year or alternatively, after the expiry of one year from the end of the assessment year. Contention by Revenue: The special counsel for the revenue opposed the assessee's contentions, arguing that the provisions of section 142(1) are clear and unambiguous, and since no period is prescribed by the Legislature, no limitation can be placed for the issuance of notice u/s 142(1). The counsel further argued that the purpose of section 142(1) is for making an assessment, which can be served till the end of two years from the end of the assessment year. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal held that there is no express provision providing a period of limitation for the issuance of notice u/s 142(1), but such notice should be issued within a reasonable period considering the scheme of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the notice u/s 142(1) can be issued at any time as long as the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction/power to assess any person. Therefore, the notice issued on 28-1-2000 was validly issued. Additional Arguments: The assessee also argued that the order u/s 143(3) could not be made without issuing a notice u/s 143(2). The Tribunal found that the order was actually passed u/s 144 and any defect in mentioning the section would not invalidate the assessment order in view of section 292B. The contention that the opportunity provided in the second proviso to section 144 was not given was also rejected as the notice u/s 142(1) had already been issued. Issue 2: Taxability of Amount Received by Non-Resident Assessee from Indian Hotels Facts: The assessee, a non-resident company, received 3% of room charges from Indian hotels for services rendered in publicity, marketing, and reservations. The Assessing Officer held that such receipts were taxable u/s 9(1)(i) and alternatively as "royalties and fees for included services" under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA. CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) held that the assessee was not taxable u/s 9(1)(i) as it had no permanent establishment in India. However, it was held that 75% of the receipts were taxable as "royalties" under Article 12 of the DTAA. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found that the issue had not been dealt with in the right perspective by the lower authorities, as they proceeded on the assumption that the DTAA authorizes the levy of tax on the income of the non-resident. The Tribunal emphasized that the taxability of the income of the non-resident must first be determined under the charging provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 4, 5, and 9. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, considering the decisions rendered by the Authority for Advance Ruling. Conclusion: Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
|
