9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a contractor for engineering, procurement and construction for setting up a new Passenger Terminal Building ('PTB') at IGI Airport, Delhi. L&T has sub-contracted the structural steel work of PTB to the applicant by means of a Sub-contract dated 27th February, 2008. In relation to the consideration received for offshore supplies covered by the said Sub-contract agreement, the applicant has sought advance ruling under section 245Q (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the following question: On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the amount received/receivable by the applicant from Larsen & Toubro Limited for offshore supply and delivery of overseas fabricated items are liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant falls within the ratio and reasoning of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima case. As highlighted later, the applicant has not come forward with the details in this regard. 5. From the above clauses in App.5 and even from the main Agreement dated 22/7/2008, it is not clear as to who the exporter is and if the applicant is not exporter, what role it has played in the export of over-seas fabricated items. At what point of time the payment was made and the ownership of the goods passed and what are the precise modalities of the transaction are not clear. The difficulty in understanding the entire transaction in a proper perspective is heightened by the fact that App.5 to the Agreement contemplates high-seas purchase contract being ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entation or clarification on facts has been furnished. In these circumstances, we are left with no option but to decline to answer the questions raised. The learned counsel for the Revenue has also expressed his inability to assist the Authority in the absence of necessary facts and documents. 7. The second question is inter-related to the first question. When we are not in a position to answer the first question for want of factual details, this question too defies an answer. .... Thus the question is riddled with ambiguity and contradiction. In view of the lack of response on the part of the applicant and in the absence of any clarification in the application, we are not in a position to give a ruling on this question also. " In conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present application was heard, a letter has been sent by the authorized signatory, on 29th January, 2010 stating that the then General Manager (overseas) who received the notices from this Authority (apart from the authorized representative) "disappeared without trace from September 2008". Even if this vague averment is correct, there was sufficient time for the applicant to check on the progress of the case by contacting the authorized representative or by making alternative arrangements. We are therefore not satisfied with this belated explanation. 5. Section 245R of the Income-tax Act,1961 reads thus: "245R Procedure on receipt of application. (1) On receipt of an application, the Authority shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Authority, pronounce its advance ruling on the question specified in the application. (5) On a question received from the applicant, the Authority shall, before pronouncing its advance ruling, provide an opportunity to the applicant of being heard, either in person or through a duly authorized representative. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, "authorized representative" shall have the meaning assigned to it in sub-section(2) of section 288, as if the applicant were an assessee. ***************************************** 6. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is no embargo under the Act to entertain the fresh application on the same set of facts and the issues when in the previous application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this stage. The discretion cannot be exercised to go to the aid of an indiligent and indifferent applicant who maintained steadfast silence throughout the earlier proceedings. Otherwise, we will be placing a premium on the negligence and indifference of an applicant who did not care to appear before this Authority and refrained from furnishing necessary information and evidence. The applicant cannot seek adjudication on merits at any time he wants after having allowed the previous application to go by default. Further, it is not as if the applicant will be left without remedy to agitate the same issue before the Income-tax authorities or the Tribunal. The extreme argument that proceedings shall be deemed to be pending notwithstanding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
