9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 149 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO accepted the assessee s claim for exclusion of such foreign assignment allowance from the ambit of total income. - Residential status of assessee - non-resident in terms of Section 6 or not - assessee rendered services outside India as employees of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. who have been sent to Switzerland on company s foreign assignment - TDS was deducted at source u/s 192 - ambit of total income u/s. 5(2) Held that - while passing the assessment order the AO had followed the permissible view in law which cannot be said to be 'unsustainable in law'. In the circumstances therefore, the jurisdictional facts for usurping the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, being absent, we hold that the action of Ld. CIT was without jurisdiction and all subsequent actions are 'null' in the eyes of law. - Decision in the case of Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay 2019 (11) TMI 1031 - ITAT KOLKATA followed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by non-resident employees of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the legality of the CIT's action in invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT had interfered with the Assessing Officer's (AO) order, claiming it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT argued that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the taxability of the foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, which state that for the CIT to invoke Section 263, two conditions must be satisfied: the order of the AO must be erroneous, and it must be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO had indeed conducted inquiries and obtained necessary documents from the assessee regarding the foreign assignment allowance. The AO had accepted the assessee's claim after due consideration of the facts and applicable legal provisions. The Tribunal found that the CIT's conclusion that the AO's order was erroneous due to lack of inquiry was factually incorrect. The AO had made inquiries, applied his mind, and adopted a permissible view in law. Therefore, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, holding that the jurisdictional facts for invoking Section 263 were absent. 2. Taxability of Foreign Assignment Allowance Received by Non-Resident Employees of IBM India Pvt. Ltd.: The second issue involved the taxability of the foreign assignment allowance received by the non-resident employees of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. The employees were sent to Switzerland on a foreign assignment, and their residential status for the relevant year was "non-resident" under Section 6 of the Act. The foreign assignment allowance was received outside India for services rendered outside India. The AO had accepted the assessee's claim that the foreign assignment allowance was not taxable in India under Section 5(2) of the Act. The CIT, however, argued that the allowance was taxable in India, as it was received from an Indian employer, and the right to receive the salary arose in India. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, which state that income under the head "Salaries" is deemed to be earned in India only if it is paid for services rendered in India. Since the services were rendered in Switzerland, the foreign assignment allowance did not fall within the ambit of Section 9(1)(ii). The Tribunal also noted that the allowance was subjected to tax in Switzerland, and the AO had examined and accepted the relevant documents and explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT's interpretation of the facts and legal position was incorrect. The foreign assignment allowance was received outside India for services rendered outside India, and therefore, it was not taxable in India under Section 5(2) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the AO's view and quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the CIT's orders passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and adopted a permissible view in law regarding the non-taxability of the foreign assignment allowance received by the non-resident employees of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. The appeals of the assessees were allowed.
|
