9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee and against the Revenue. - ITA No. 380/2003, ITA No. 392/2003, ITA No.393/2003, ITA No.391/2003 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Lakshmi Gurung and Mr. P. Roy Chaudhari, Senior Standing counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, Senior Adv. with Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adv ORDER 1. These appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') are directed against the common order dated 23rd January 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 1448 to 1451/Del/2002 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 1996-97 to 1999- 2000. 2. Initially this Court dismissed the appeals on 5th October 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rections before the High Court in the second week of January, 2008. I.A. is disposed of accordingly. 3. Thereafter when the matter was listed before this Court on 15th September 2008, the following order was passed: Earlier this appeal had been dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5.10.2004 as in its view no substantial question of law arose for consideration. However, the matter was taken in appeal by the revenue before the Supreme Court which set aside the said order by its order dated 10.12.2007. The Supreme Court also observed that the question of law which arose for determination was : Whether the assessee was entitled to plead reasonable cause for not depositing the tax? In view of the above circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counathe and Mr. Bruce Beaton to the Respondent to look after the business in India. It was found that the Respondent was deducting tax at source from the salaries paid to the aforementioned two persons. However, no tax had been deducted at source on the salaries paid to them by the parent company i.e. ALF in France in terms of Section 192 read with Section 9 (1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly penalty proceedings under Section 271C were initiated against the Respondent. 6. By an order dated 17th November 2000, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range rejected the explanation offered by the Respondent that it was unaware of the payment of salary by ALF to the expatriate employees and, therefore, did not deduct tax. A penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could arise only when the employee himself furnishes the details in that regard to the company in India with which he was employed. 10. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Marubeni India (P) Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 157 (Del). Although learned counsel for the Revenue sought to distinguish the said decision, the Court finds that the facts in the said case as well as the one in hand are more or less similar. In that case too the expatriate employees were full-time employees of the Indian subsidiary i.e., Marubeni India (P) Ltd. They were also receiving salary outside India from the principal employer. Just as in this case, there was no intimation given by the expatriate employees to the Indian company t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
