2025 (5) TMI 883 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ib) - equalization levy for online advertisement - assessee pleaded that on bare perusal of the audited financial statements it clearly reveals that assessee has not paid any consideration to a non resident for any advertisement or any other services on which equalization levy is deductible HELD THAT - We find that assessee s submissions were not considered at all by the ld NFAC. NFAC is directed to considered all those submissions together with documentary evidences if any and pass an order de novo in accordance with law qua the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ib) of the Act. The assessee is permitted to file fresh evidences if any in support of its contentions. All the evidences submitted by the assessee shall have to be admitted by the ld NFAC and the issue to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered by the Tribunal is the validity of the disallowance of Rs. 7,64,18,432/- under section 40(a)(ib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of non-compliance with the provisions relating to equalization levy under Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016. Specifically, the question is whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on payments made for specified services (online advertisement) to non-residents and whether such disallowance was justified given the facts and evidence presented.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Applicability of Equalization Levy and Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ib)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016, which introduced the concept of equalization levy. Section 164 defines "equalisation levy" as a tax on consideration received or receivable for specified services, which include online advertisement services. Section 165(1) imposes a 6% equalization levy on consideration received by a non-resident from a resident carrying on business or profession in India or a non-resident with a permanent establishment in India. Exemptions under Section 165(2) include cases where the non-resident has a permanent establishment in India and the service is connected with it, or where the aggregate consideration does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh, or where the payment is not for business or professional purposes.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the scope of equalization levy and the conditions under which it is leviable. It was noted that the levy applies only on payments made to non-residents for specified services. The assessee contended that no such payments were made during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal observed that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ib) was based on a tax audit report which purportedly proposed the disallowance due to non-compliance with equalization levy provisions.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted audited financial statements and profit and loss account for the relevant year, which showed no expenditure on advertisement or payments to non-residents for specified services. Furthermore, the assessee filed a revised tax audit report rectifying a typographical error that initially proposed the disallowance. A certificate signed by the assessee and the Chartered Accountant was also produced to confirm that no such payments were made and no disallowance was warranted.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ib) was premised on incorrect information in the original tax audit report. Since the assessee had not made any payments attracting equalization levy, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) did not consider the additional submissions and revised documents filed by the assessee, as they were not accompanied by a formal petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the original tax audit report and the intimation under section 143(1) to uphold the disallowance. The assessee argued that the original report contained a typographical error and that no payments attracting equalization levy were made. The Tribunal sided with the assessee on the basis that the NFAC failed to consider the revised audit report and supporting evidence, thereby not adjudicating the matter on merits.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the NFAC to consider all submissions and documentary evidence, including the revised tax audit report and certificates, and to pass a fresh order de novo in accordance with law regarding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ib). The assessee was permitted to file fresh evidence in support of its contentions, and the NFAC was mandated to admit all such evidence and adjudicate the issue afresh.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ib) for non-deduction of equalization levy was not sustainable where the assessee had not made any payments to non-residents for specified services attracting equalization levy. It emphasized the necessity of considering all relevant evidence and submissions before confirming such disallowance.

A crucial legal reasoning preserved verbatim states: "The ld NFAC is directed to consider all those submissions together with documentary evidences, if any, and pass an order de novo in accordance with law qua the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ib) of the Act. The assessee is permitted to file fresh evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. All the evidences submitted by the assessee shall have to be admitted by the ld NFAC and the issue to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law."

The core principle established is that disallowance under section 40(a)(ib) must be based on accurate and substantiated facts, and procedural fairness requires that all relevant evidence and submissions be considered before confirming such disallowance. The Tribunal's final determination was to set aside the order confirming the disallowance and remit the matter to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

← Previous Next →