9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellant and they are free to send the samples collected by them for testing to any other laboratories. Therefore, this is a principal to principal relationship. The decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi in the case of SRL Ranbaxy Ltd. (2011 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT DELHI ) would therefore, bind the authorities. We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by this single paragraph conclusion. There is absolutely no discussion of the law and why the coordinate Bench decision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable on facts or inapplicable. There is no discussion, much less any finding and conclusion that the order of the First Appellate Authority is perverse or is contrary to law. There are no infirmities, much less serious errors of fact and law noted by the Tribunal in the order of the Commissioner, which the Tribunal is obliged to and which order is therefore interfered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have, independent of the statements, referred to such of the materials on record which would disclose that the assessee has entered into such arrangements so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the laboratories for testing of their samples and submitting the final reports. In the circumstances, and in any event, when the assessee hands over the report of the testing, it is the assessee who receives payment. The Tribunal assumes by terming the whole arrangement as a principal to agent relationship, that it is the appellant/assessee who is paying the money and therefore, for such services for which money is paid, the assessee is obliged to deduct tax at source. 7. Mr. Murlidhar would submit that this understanding of the Tribunal is entirely faulty. Apart from that, in the entire order of the Commissioner which is upholding the stand of the assessee, there is reference to the very documents which the Assessing Officer looked into. It is based on these very documents that the Commissioner/First Appellate Authority held that there was a principal to principal relationship and not a principal to agent relationship. The Tribunal, without adverting to these findings and conclusions of the Commissioner, has reversed his order and in reversing the same, the Tribunal totally misdirected itself. It refers to a so called questionnaire and addressed to the appellant/ assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h that no reasonable person properly instructed as to the facts and law could come to in the light of the fact that (a) there was no such grievance raised by the Respondent, (b) the Appellant had filed voluminous evidence in support of its contentions and the Tribunal never indicated during the hearing that it was not satisfied with the evidence, (c) the Tribunal appears to have totally lost sight of the said evidence and has not even made a reference to it in the impugned order leave alone discussing it? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law the Tribunal is justified in completely ignoring the two grounds raised by the Appellant under Rule 27 of the Incometax Rules 1962? (vii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is justified in totally ignoring the binding judgment of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in SRL Ranbaxy Ltd. v/s ACIT (2012) 143 TTJ 265 which is similar on facts and also the other judgments cited by the Appellant? 10. We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal impugned in these Appeals. The Tribunal seems to be unaware of the fact that the entire order of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it set out common points which arose for its consideration. Those points are summarized as under: I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not correctly appreciating the nature of the payment made to TSPs that there is a principal and agent relationship between the assessee company and TSPs. II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not correctly appreciating the nature of the payment made to TSPs as the same is in the nature of commission or brokerage which is evident from the affidavit cum undertaking executed by the TSPs and their application forms for appointment as TSPs. III. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not correctly appreciating the nature of the payment made to TSPs as the same is in the nature of commission or brokerage which is evident from the statements recorded during the course of Survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14/10/2011. IV. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. The Tribunal terms certain facts as undisputed, whereas, those are very much disputed. The assessee is not admitting that the service providers are its agents. It is not admitting that the service providers are allowed to collect necessary charges from the assessee's clients for collecting samples and delivering its report. We do not see from where such admission is derived by the Tribunal which admission has completely escaped the attention of the First Appellate Authority. From where the Tribunal derived the facts and termed them as undisputed, that there is a sharing of charges between the assessee and the service providers and that is so arranged so as to give it a colour distinguishable from commission or brokerage as envisaged under Section 194H of the IT Act. Then, in paragraph 2.6 (at running pages 65 to 67) the Tribunal holds as under: 2.6. During the course of hearing, the Ld A.R. vehemently contended that the relationship between the assessee and TSPs/collectors/aggregators are that of Principal to Principal basis, yet no document was produced before us to substantiate those contentions. Further, we notice that the test results given by the assessee dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable on facts or inapplicable. There is no discussion, much less any finding and conclusion that the order of the First Appellate Authority is perverse or is contrary to law. There are no infirmities, much less serious errors of fact and law noted by the Tribunal in the order of the Commissioner, which the Tribunal is obliged to and which order is therefore interfered by the Tribunal. Why the Tribunal feels it is its duty and obligation to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Authority, therefore, should be indicated with clarity. We have also not seen a reference to any communication or to any document which would indicate that the six queries raised by the Tribunal on the assessee have not been answered, much less satisfactorily. The Tribunal should have, independent of the statements, referred to such of the materials on record which would disclose that the assessee has entered into such arrangements so as to avoid the obligation to deduct the tax at source. If the arrangements are sham, bogus or dubious, then such a finding should have been rendered. Therefore, we are most unhappy with the manner in which the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
