9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain amount of emoluments paid by the appellant-company to ex partiate Japanese staff, who were on short-term assignment toIndia. The emoluments were paid inTokyo,Japan. The Japanese staff were also paid salary inIndiaon which TDS was deducted. During August 1996 TDS on the salaries paid inJapanfor all the years along with interest under section 201(A) was remitted fromTokyoby the appellant company. The tax remitted by the Liaison Office was at Rs. 7,99,52,387 and interest at Rs. 2,08,49,930, whereas in the case of Project Office the tax and interest under section 201(1A) was remitted at Rs. 1,11,49,233 and Rs. 30,03,278 respectively. The case of the department is that there was a delay in deduction of TDS and accordingly the penalty under section 271C were imposed by the Assessing Officer on account of Liaison Office and Project Office by separate orders. In the case of Liaison office the penalty of Rs. 10,08,02,319 and in the case of Project Office the penalty of Rs. 1,41,52,511 were levied under section 271@ 100 per cent equivalent to TDS. 3. For the purpose of better understanding, the brief background of the case is explained here as under: 3.1 The appellant-company is non-r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was insisted that the jurisdiction of the case was already with the above authority and in view of the Circular No. 719 dated22-8-1995, it was submitted that compliance should not be insisted inNew Delhi. The Assessing Officer Circle 22(1),New Delhiwas not satisfied and accordingly he issued summons under section 131 along with letter dated24-4-1996and insisted for compliance and submission of the details inNew Delhi. The company was also informed in regard to penal consequence for any failure of compliance. 5. Again in reply the counsel of the assessee filed a letter datedMay 13, 1996andMay 20,1996, wherein it was submitted that appellant had paid certain salaries and emoluments to its expatriate employees inJapan. It was further submitted that since the data was spread over in various companies where the employees were located and since the data was required for number of years, accordingly the time was sought for two months to file the details, as required by the Assessing Officer. Along with this reply the assessee had filed copies of Form 24 already filed with the Assessing Officer of Bombay. It was also informed by the company that it had not deducted tax on the emoluments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply filed by assessee-company is placed in paper book at pages 8 to 17). It was again informed that the jurisdiction in the case of Liaison Office rests with the Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Mumbai, where the appellant was then assessed and consequently the authorities inDelhihave no jurisdiction to proceed with the penalty proceedings. It was also requested that the notice is defective on various grounds and there is lack of application on the part of the Assessing Officer before issue of notice. Accordingly it was urged that the penalty proceedings are invalid. It was also stated before the Assessing Officer that there was a reasonable cause on various counts, such as there is no obligation to deduct TDS on emoluments paid inJapan, as the expatriate employees inIndiawere on short-term assignments and being in Liaison Office, they had continued to work with Head Office atTokyo. Thus, it was pleaded that the services rendered by these personnel could not be regarded as service inIndiaand hence there is no tax liability inIndia. It was further stated that emoluments paid inJapandoes not arise out of services rendered inIndia. It was further stated that the emoluments consiste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a positive fashion in dealing with matters and no action would be taken against the company. It was also stated in that letter that in another Japanese company's case, i.e., M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation had been granted waiver from the penalty proceedings, even though their declaration had been made after the close of Amnesty Scheme. It was thus pleaded that no penalty should be imposed on the appellant, as the entire amount of tax along with interest has already been paid and the intention of the assessee-company was bona fide one. 8. The Assessing Officer after discussing the reply was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee. Accordingly he levied penalty under section 271C on31-8-1998at Rs. 10,08,02,319 on Liaison Office and Rs. 1,41,52,511 on Project Office. While imposing penalties the Assessing Officer in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his order has stated that the appellant company had deliberately and with an intention to defraud the revenue had not deducted the tax. It was further observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had paid the tax and interest thereon after investigation and detection by the Assessing Officer and there was no voluntary declaration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 11. Regarding reasonable cause the CIT(Appeals) has observed that the issue of Circular No. 685 during June, 1994 the appellant cannot contend the lack of knowledge of TDS provisions in India and consequently the arguments of the bona fide belief contended by the appellant were rejected. Regarding the Tribunal decision in the case of Mitsui & Co. it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the decision was rendered by the Tribunal on the facts of that case, therefore, it was distinguishable and accordingly the contention of the appellant was rejected. 12. Similar contentions were made in regard to penalty imposed on Project Office. However, no arguments raised in regard to jurisdiction because of in that case no jurisdiction issue was involved. The CIT (Appeals) rejected the contention of the appellant-company in case of both offices i.e., Liaison Office and Project Office and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Now against these orders of the CIT(Appeals) the assessee is in appeals here before the Tribunal. 13. On behalf of assessee, the learned counsel Shri K.R. Pradeep and on behalf of the department, learned Sr. D.R. Ms. Anita Kapoor appeared from time to time. 14. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven on subsequent dates i.e., during the penalty proceedings the issue in regard to lack of jurisdiction was raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer who, for the reasons known to him, ignored these contentions of the assessee. It was further submitted that copies of Form No. 24 etc. were also filed by the appellant during the course of penalty proceedings and that too on insistence and the direction of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in these compelling circumstances the assessee filed the above copies along with the written submissions in regard to penalty proceedings. It was further stated that notices were also issued from Mumbai Office and those notices were also complied with by the assessee by filing replies. Accordingly it was stated that the assessee is an existing assessee at Mumbai and in case of existing assessee authority can assume jurisdiction only if it is transferred under section 127 of the Income-tax Act. It was further pointed out by the counsel of the assessee that in remand report sent by the Assessing Officer, it was mentioned that though the jurisdiction was transferred on11-2-1999, but the appellant had not taken objection at the time of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts were mentioned by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in his remand report dated24-2-1999. It was further added by the counsel of the assessee that first of all the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the issue of jurisdiction in his penalty order. Secondly, the appellant had filed Form No. 26 in the case of Liaison Office since early 1950 until the transfer of case through the order of CBDT on11-2-1999, with Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle 31(1), Mumbai and had not filed any such returns in New Delhi as has been stated by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in his report. The counsel of the assessee requested for direction from the Bench to the department to produce such Form No. 24, which the department is contending that they were filed inNew Delhi. At this point of time the Bench directed to the learned DR, who readily agreed to produce the Form No. 24 and other files and records available with the department, which would clinch the issue. In continuance of his arguments, the learned AR further submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) before giving his findings on jurisdiction, should have sought for physical examination of the Form No. 24, which are said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t jurisdiction. 17. It was further submitted that even the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was without application of mind, as in both the notices issued in the name of Liaison Office and in the name of Project Officer, similar amount of short deduction of tax was mentioned which was at Rs. 11,49,54,831. It was further submitted that there was only information with the Assessing Officer atNew Delhithat the appellant had remitted certain TDS and that knowledge alone would not be sufficient for initiation of penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer should have ascertained that where the actual jurisdiction lies or where the regular returns on account of TDS on Form No. 24 were filed and then only he should have issued proper and valid notice to the assessee, which he failed to do so. The reliance was placed on the decisions in Asa John Devinathan v. Addl. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 270 (Mad.), Chunnilal Surajmal v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 141 ITO v. Madnani Engg. Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1, ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),GangaSaran & Sons v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1. It was further submitted that the findings of the CIT (Appeals) in para 15 are also not correct, as admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellant's office and subsidiaries all over the world in more than 165 countries. The appellant-company is one of the largest trading companies in the world with an annual turnover of more than 110 billionUS$. Such a business involves continue travelling toTokyoand other parts of the world. The stay by expatriate personnel inIndiais partial. The services rendered by the expatriate personnel are partial inIndiaand rest outsideIndia. The contract of employment always remains inJapanand their stay inIndiais on deputation. Hence it was submitted that the services rendered by these personnel cannot be totally regarded as services rendered inIndia. Large amount of services are rendered outsideIndiawhich has no relationship whatsoever with the stay or service inIndia. The expatriate personnel have the obligation to look after the entire region consisting of Indian neighbourhood. Consequently the expatriates have the dual employment or dual responsibility and their primary responsibility and service is to their parent company atTokyoand the stay inIndiais only facilitator in nature. It was also submitted that the Liaison Office, as the name would suggest, is to liase which indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that unless an order under section 201 is made, the liability of the appellant for payment of tax does not get crystallised. On these submissions the learned counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decisions in Sequoia Construction Co. Ltd. v. P.P. Suri, ITO [1986] 158 ITR 496; Detecon Indian Project Office v. ITO [1994] 210 ITR 260; in case of Mitsui & Co. [IT Appeal Nos. 1006 to 1016 (Delhi) of 1998, dated 27-5-1999]. Accordingly it was submitted that no penalty can be imposed without first passing an order under section 201 of the Act. 21. It was further submitted that mere deposit of tax with the government cannot give rise to a presumption that there has been a failure to deduct tax. Therefore, the presumptions cannot attract penal action against the assessee. It was further submitted that normally the assessments have to be completed first and in the assessment penalty proceedings have to be initiated first and then a show-cause notice for levying the penalty is to be issued. Therefore, it was submitted that in the present case neither any order under section 201 was passed, nor the amount on which the penalties were imposed, was ascertained as the penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved by mutual agreement between the competent authorities of both the states and the competent authority in India is Revenue Secretary and this remedy is provided irrespective and in addition to the remedy provided in the domestic state. The consultation with the authorities inIndiawas required as the Circular No. 685 issued by the CBDT was against the legal position interpreted by the Courts as well as by the appellant's own belief that the impugned salaries were not taxable inIndia. The confusion created by Circular require to be redressed by discussion and it is in the course of such discussion an assurance for non-levy of penalty was held out and the appellant implicitly believed in the assurance given. However, the Assessing Officer has acted contrary to the assurance given. It was further added that appellant company had paid taxes voluntarily, first in August, 1996 and thereafter in December, 1998. It was further stated that penalty cannot be levied automatically just because it is legal to do so. Penalty should be levied only in the absence of the existence of reasonable cause and if reasonable cause is established, no penalty should be levied. In this regard the reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid outsideIndia. 25. It was seriously contended that the issues involved in these appeals are largely similar to the case decided by the Tribunal in the case of Mitsui & Co. The reasonable cause given by the appellant are similar to the reasons considered in the said case of Mitsui & Co. and the Tribunal had given finding in favour of the appellant and deleted the penalty in that case. It was further added that even the facts of the present case are on much better footing. Hence the decision of the Tribunal should be applied in the case of assessee also. It was further stated that the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of Mitsui & Co. was brought to the knowledge of the CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) did not consider the same by placing reliance on the remand report of the Assessing Officer that Mitsui & Co.'s case has not been accepted by the department as the second appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The counsel of the assessee further stated that the decision of the Tribunal was binding on the CIT (Appeals), as undisputedly the CIT(Appeals) is a subordinate authority to the Tribunal. In this regard the reliance was placed on the decision in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strongly supported the levy of penalty and accordingly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. It was further submitted that the orders have been passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant and all the reasonings given by the appellant were duly considered and the appellant cannot have any grievance against the levy of penalty. She submitted that it is the tendency of many foreign companies to show ignorance of Indian laws, when actually all these companies are assisted by highly qualified professionals and are properly advised. Non deduction of tax is deliberate and with an intention not to comply with the local laws. This tendency is more pronounced among the Japanese companies and hence it is a case of enhancing the penalty and not deletion at all. 29. On the issue of jurisdiction, she submitted that the learned AR had valid jurisdiction. It was further submitted that impugned tax was paid atNew Delhiand this incident itself established that the jurisdiction was with the Assessing Officer who had imposed penalty. It was further stated that the Assessing Officer had inherent jurisdiction in theterritoryofNew Delhi. The territorial jurisdiction is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999, it was submitted that this is not an order under section 127, as it is only a clarificatory in nature and has no bearing on the issue involved. Accordingly it was submitted that jurisdiction having been validly assumed, should not be interfered with. 30. On the question of validity of notice, the learned DR submitted that there is no need to be satisfied before issue of notice of penalty and for recording of such satisfaction prior to the issue of notice, as section 271C does not envisage so. It was further submitted that the wording in section 271(1)(c) is different from the wording in section 271C. The former envisages recording of satisfaction in view of the peculiarity of wording in penalty section; whereas the wording of section 271C does not envisage recording of any such application of mind or satisfaction. Accordingly it was submitted that the fact that the appellant had paid taxes inNew Delhiitself is sufficient to initiate penalty proceedings and no further satisfaction is required. 31. Regarding various defects pointed out in the notices it was submitted that those defects have not created any harm or grievance to the appellant. It was further submitted that thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as expenses would not reduce the liability for deduction of tax. At best payment of corporate tax would act as mitigating circumstances and such a mitigating circumstance is not relevant for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271 C. This fact would be relevant only if an application of waiver of penalty under section 273A. Existence of reasonable cause should be judged from what an ordinary person of average intelligence would do in a given circumstance. Normally an average person would comply with law and not tried to deviate from the explicit position of law. On this basis it has to be held that the appellant has not behaved in a fashion what an ordinary person would do. In regard to the decision in S. G. Pgnatale's case it was stated that there was no bona fide in the present case and stating that there was a bona fide belief is incorrect, as in the said decision the amended provisions of section 9(1)(ii) were not considered. The reliance was placed in this regard on the decision. Regarding the decision in Morgenstern Werner's case, it was stated that the facts in that case were also different and similar view was expressed in regard to the decision in N. Beaman's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is a question of fact and no case laws can be relied in deciding the question of law, the learned DR placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar 194 ITR 434 and CIT v. Brijlal Lohia & Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1972] 84 ITR 273 (SC). It was also submitted by the learned DR that the appellant had complied with the provisions only after sustained investigations by the department and this fact is evident from the questionnaire issued on27-3-1996under section 133(6) as well as the subsequent summons under section 131. 39. Regarding the decision in the case of Mitsui & Co., the learned DR submitted that this case should not be considered as relief granted in that case was based on the facts of that case. It was also submitted that reasonable cause should be ascertained in each case and hence Mitsui & Co.'s case being a decision on facts cannot be applied to the appellant's case. The learned DR further stated that even the facts of the case of Mitsui & Co.'s case are entirely different and in this regard the learned DR filed written submissions. It was also stated by the learned DR that Mitsui case was decided by the Tribunal on incorrect positi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yand the TDS was paid atBombay. It was also fairly admitted by the learned DR that department does not possess any Form No. 24 indicating short deduction of tax on which basis the penalty was levied. It was also confirmed by her that no returns on Form No. 24 were filed inNew Delhifor earlier years i.e., prior to assessment year 1997-98. 42. After that the counsel of the assessee further submitted that there is no iota of evidence which established that assessee had filed any return here atDelhias all the returns were filed in Mumbai and TDS were deducted there. Accordingly it was submitted that there is no case of department that assessee had paid any tax inDelhi, therefore, the jurisdiction was withDelhi. The counsel of the assessee also filed copies of Form No. 24 for all these years filed at Mumbai and also filed bank advices for establishing that the salaries paid to expatriates inIndiawere paid in Mumbai. It was reiterated by the counsel of the assessee that jurisdiction being mandatory cannot be transferred either by consent or agreement; transfer of jurisdiction can be only through an order under section 127 and in this case, it was again stated that the order under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uniformly the Tribunal and the courts have held otherwise. It was further added that the decision in N. Beaman's case was rendered on September, 1994 while the Circular No. 685 was still in operation. The decision of the Tribunal is different from the position of law explained in the circular. Accordingly it was further submitted that all this confusion led the appellant to seek clarification from the department as provided in Article 25 of DTA betweenIndiaandJapanand considerable time was spent on the same. Even though no clarity in the position of law emerged, still the appellant decided to pay tax on its own and such a payment cannot be construed as defrauding the revenue. It was further added by the counsel of the assessee that decision cited by the learned DR in S.A. Hareford's case actually supports the appellant's belief of bona fide, as in this decision the Tribunal set aside the matter for want of material and did not decide the issue. It was further submitted that likewise, other decisions cited by the learned DR does not help to the department, as the facts of those cases are distinguishable. It was further submitted that the Circular was issued in June, 1994, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salary in bank account, Form No. 16 issued, etc. All these documents clearly indicate that the appellant had paid salaries in Mumbai to their expatriate employees located inIndia. Further the tax was deducted and paid in Mumbai. Necessary compliance of filing the returns and other TDS proceedings under section 201 etc. has been carried out atBombaybefore Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle 31(1), Mumbai under TAN No. M-2906B(S) BBY. We have seen certain orders passed by the ACIT atBombayunder section 201 of the Act, which positively concludes that jurisdiction was at Mumbai. There is no return filed atNew Delhiin any of the year involved in these appeals, or in earlier year. We further noted that even after the levy of penalty the compliance of TDS related issues continued in Mumbai until11-2-1999, the date on which the jurisdiction was transferred by the CBDT with Joint Commissioner of income-tax,New Delhi. Thus, factually there is no scope to hold that jurisdiction was atNew Delhi. The appellant is an existing assessee and in such a case transfer of jurisdiction, if any, can only be in a manner provided under section 127 of the Income-tax Act. In this case the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons known to the authorities below, this exercise was not done. As we have already stated that both the lower authorities could have examined the point of jurisdiction, especially knowing that the proceedings are penal in nature. We further found that even territorial jurisdiction lies at Mumbai as the salaries to expatriate employees were paid in Mumbai, which is clearly evidenced by the tax paid challans, Form No. 24, bank advice, Form No. 16 etc. Hence the contention of the learned DR that territorial jurisdiction as provided under section 124(5) lies with ACIT,New Delhi, in our considered view, is not well founded. The salary paid overseas to the expatriate employees was atTokyoand the tax was also deducted atTokyo. Such tax was remitted toIndiathrough Bank of Tokyo and Mitsubishi, who in turn made arrangements with Indian Overseas Bank,New Delhito remit it to the Reserve Bank ofIndia. Thus, the bank acted as an intermediary for payment of tax and such a payment cannot be assumed as conferring jurisdiction atNew Delhi. The appellant is right in contending that it has not conceded jurisdiction inNew Delhiby participating under protest in the proceedings before the authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F.No. 275/206/95-IT(B)]" 51.1 The language of circular is very clear in all terms which does not require any explanation. The assessee's Head Office was situated atBombay, where the regular returns in regard to TDS on salary were filed on Form No. 24; they were accepted there; order under section 201 was passed there. On receipt of notice under section 133(6) and then under section 131 in May, 1996, the assessee from the day one clarified this position that it is regularly assessed at Bombay with Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 31(1). Accordingly its jurisdiction lies there. Having all these informations even then the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction which, in our considered view, was totally wrong, as the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction by applying wrong application of facts. The circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the department. Therefore, it cannot be said that any officer can assume jurisdiction without the order by the CBDT under section 127. 51.2 Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of Liaison office are without jurisdiction. Therefore, these proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anese companies." 53. We further noted that the arguments submitted by both sides on this question has been largely the same and, in fact, the case laws relied upon by the department have been mentioned by the Tribunal in the case of Mitsui & Co. In addition the appellant has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd., which has held that if a particular item is omitted under a bona fide belief, then it would not be right to condemn the same and impose penalty. Though the department has contended that the appellant's case is not similar to the case of Mitsui & Co., yet no distinction of any significance on the facts was brought to the notice. It was strongly stated by the learned DR that the findings in the case of Mitsui & Co. are findings of fact, therefore, these findings cannot be relied upon here. These submissions of the learned DR are not well founded because of the facts of each case has to be seen separately. If facts are similar, then no second view should be adopted. The approach should be a consistent one. As we have already stated that we have gone through the decision of Tribunal in the case of Mitsui & Co. and found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has filed further appeal before the High Court. In our considered view, this objection of the Assessing Officer was incorrect because of any order passed by any authority is binding on the subordinate court, unless that order is stayed by any higher court. This view of ours find support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamalakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to the assessees and chaos in the administration of tax laws. In view of all these facts, it was essential that the authorities below should have followed the decision of the Tribunal. In the said decision the Tribunal has held in favour of the appellant and had given a finding that the bona fide belief indeed existed constituting reasonable cause on the basis of which penalty was deleted. We are of the same view in regard to the facts of the present cases, as the appellant in these cases was under a bona fide belief and the same constitutes reasonable cause. The bona fide belief in this case was even more genuine, inasmuch as even the basic liability against the appellant company was not established by the department. In such circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the appellant cannot be held that the same was not voluntary. Further contention of the learned DR that the voluntary payment has no bearing on the levy of penalty, as it does not constitute a reasonable cause, in our view, is also not correct. In the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan it is held that conditions mentioned in section 273A are equally applicable in judging existence of reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act, and has given directions to the Tribunal to do so. 59. We further noted that while directing the Tribunal the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan has laid down some principles, which are as under: "So far as the non-levy was concerned, the following reasons in each case seemed to have weighed with the authorities for non-levy: (i) case where the deductor had voluntarily revised its TDS statements and paid taxes & interest thereon. (ii) the deductor had cooperated with the department in the proceedings. (iii) The deductor was under a bona fide belief that it was not liable to deduct tax at source on the payments in question. (iv) The deductor was guided by the Foreign Chamber o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62. We further noted that the Assessing Officer in his remand report, copy of the same is placed at page 93 of the paper book, has mentioned that the delay after the issue of Circular No. 685, which expired on 28-2-1995, cannot be accepted and similar view has also been held by the CIT(Appeals) in para 17 of her order, wherein it had stated that repeated circulars issued by CBDT clarifying the position of law. We noted that number of years were involved in the present case and the salaries were paid inJapan. The company was collecting the datas in regard to payment of salary, medical, insurance, children education expenses, bonus, accommodation etc. in regard to expatriate employees, therefore, there was a reasonable cause. As soon as these datas were collected the appellant company paid due taxes along with interest immediately through its banking channel inJapan. It cannot be said that the intention of the assessee was mala fide. We further noted that the Assessing Officer even has not ascertained the amount of liability. He just issued show cause notices on the basis of payment made by the appellant-company and then imposed the penalties. Even it was not bothered by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
