TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant-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-resident company. Head Quarter of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 paid inJapanand the appellant is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued against the Project Office of the appellant-company. 7. In reply to the said notices the company had filed a detailed letter on26th February, 1998, which consisted of 10 pages, where the proposal of penalty was objected. (This reply 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 personne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral informal discussions with high ranking officials in CBDT and Finance Ministry and assurance was given to the assessee-company that if the company went ahead and paid the taxes, the spirit of Amnesty Scheme would still be applied in 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 revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction was not acceptable to the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly the same was also rejected. While rejecting the issue in regard to jurisdiction it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the lack of jurisdiction would not vitiate the proceedings. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 133(6) was issued for the first time by the authorities inDelhion27-3-1996, the appellant had immediately taken objection and pointed out the lack of jurisdiction which was ignored by the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that even 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in New Delhi range on 12-6-1997. It was also pointed out that the CIT(Appeals) has mentioned that the revised returns were filed on24-12-1998inNew Delhi. Regarding these observations the counsel of the assessee submitted that in fact these facts 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-23,New Delhiin regard to jurisdiction was clearly contrary to the Circular issued by the CBDT. Therefore, it was vehemently argued that the penalty order in the case of Liaison Office are without 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 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is silent on the liability on part of the appellant. It was further submitted that the employees at Liaison Office of appellant-company has dual obligation of liasing with Mumbai Office, Indian operation with their Head Office in Tokyo as well 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be made without which not even a notice can be issued. The learned AR pointed out that even no order under section 201 or otherwise has been passed by the authorities in all these years, prior to passing of the penalty orders. Accordingly it was 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department. The attention of the Bench was drawn on relevant papers placed in the paper book. It was further submitted that Article 25 of Double Taxation Agreement between India and Japan provides for a mechanism, wherein disputed issue could be solved 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on the part of the appellant to defraud the department or to save the tax. Therefore, looking to these bona fide intention of the assessee it clearly established that there was a reasonable cause for not deducting the tax on the amount of emoluments 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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al failure and not merely delay. In support of this contention the reliance was placed on the decisions in CIT v. Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 561 and 49 ITD 669 (sic). 28. In reply, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, Ms. Anita Kapoor 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 at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in holding that jurisdiction was valid inNew Delhi. Referring to circular No. 719, she further submitted that it is limited to filing of annual return and does not refer to jurisdiction for deduction of TDS. Regarding the order passed by the CBDT on11-2-1999, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence of reasonable cause should be proved by the appellant and in this case such a responsibility has not been discharged. Further no reasonable cause exists, as has been contended by the appellant. Mere payment of corporate tax by not claiming the salaries paid 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) we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 133 ITR 239 (SC). Further reliance was placed on a decision of English case of Oceanic Contractor Ink, wherein the Court of Appeal by majority of 3:2 held that TDS provisions could be applied on extra territory. 38. In regard to the contention that reasonable cause 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. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned DR were for the period1-4-1996to31-5-1996, which was relevant to assessment year 1997-98 and this year is not before the Tribunal. From the records available with the learned DR as well as in the paper book, it is noticed that the Form No. 16 were filed atBombayand 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , still the department clarified the legal position only in June, 1994 by issuing Circular No. 685. Even the circular is not free from doubt, as the circular prescribed liability across the board by mentioning that all payments of salaries outside India is taxable, whereas 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 materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue as under: 48. First and foremost issue of jurisdiction in case of Liaison Office of the appellant required to be settled. We have gone through the copies of Form No. 24 filed by the appellant in Mumbai as well as the other documents, such as payment of tax, credit of 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,Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, which was well founded with evidence and chose to rely on the report of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. Nothing was prevented the Joint Commissioner or the CIT(Appeals) to have called the records from Mumbai office to reach a finding on the jurisdiction, but for the reasons 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 ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Where, however the return is not being filed the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in term of Rule 36-A of the Income-tax Rules may proceed so as to enforce compliance with the provisions relating to deduction of tax at source from salary. Sd/ Anjan Kumar, Director, Budget [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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee that Chapter XVIIB has no extra territorial operation with regard to the payments made in Japan to its expatriate employees based on legal advice cannot be said to be an after thought but such view or opinion prevailed at the relevant time during the financial years involved among Japanese 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we noted that CIT(Appeals) has not brought out any distinction between these two cases. The reasons given by the Joint Commissioner of Income tax in his remand report for not applying the decision in the case of Mitsui is that the same has not been accepted by the department and the department 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 pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he efforts were going on with the Ministry of Finance and the CBDT and even before getting any suitable reply from the CBDT or Ministry of Finance, the assessee decided to make payment. This intention of the appellant company again cannot be equated with any mala fide intention. Thus, the payment 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 TD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails were furnished. Therefore, in our considered view, the department should not adopt a different approach in such cases. Even in the case of assessee's group the penalties were dropped atBombayoffice by the department, but on the same facts heavy penalties were imposed by the same department inDelhi. 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 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
