9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... few others under Voyage Charter. However, the petitioner had failed to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payments made to non-residents under these voyage agreements. 4. Issue relating party to failure to deduct tax on payments made to M/s.Dolphin Maritime Limited Cyprus under the Bare Boat Charter Cum Demise (BBCD) was one of the issue which was handled by the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation). 5. By a communication dated 31.8.2004, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the details of payment made to the above company along with Emirates Trading Agency LLC, UAE and Shipping and Trading Associates LLC UAE. The petitioner had claimed the benefit of Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) with Cyprus insofar as payments made to Dolphin Maritime Ltd., Cyprus was concerned. 6. The petitioner replied to the same which eventually culminated in an order dated 27.04.2005 of the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) for the assessment year 2003-04 & 2004-05. Information was called for payment made up to the date of notice dated 31.8.2004. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1,46,51,000/- and was held liable to pay tax under section 201 (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove which is now thought to be disallowed. 13. It is submitted that the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2004-05 vide order dated 19.12.2006 with the concurrence of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 14. It is submitted that the notices dated 28.03.2011 issued to the petitioner for the respective Assessment Years were without jurisdiction. It is submitted that for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, not only the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer but also the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had scrutinised while holding a concurrent jurisdiction over the files of the petitioner and that the Income Tax Officer passed the assessment order on 19.12.2006 after due scrutiny by the said officer as well. 15. It is further submitted that the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) had also issued a notice dated 31.8.2004 which culminated in an order dated 27.4.2005 as mentioned above. It is therefore submitted that three different officers had applied their mind and scrutinised the payments made to non-residents and therefore there was no case made out for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2017) 77 taxmann.com 176 (SC) iv).Vishwanath Engineers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 21 taxmann.com 5 (Gujarat) v).Asianet Star Communications (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Non Corporate Circle 20(1), W.P.Nos.25328, 25331, 25336 of 2018 vi) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vi. Bharathi Constructions, (2020) 121 taxmann.com 302 (Madras) vii).Transperk Industry Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, , (2017) 80 taxmann.com 83 (Gujarat) viii).Income Tax Officer vs. Techspan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com361(SC): 2018) 302 CTR 74 (SC) ix).Commissiner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) x).Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) xi).E-Infochips Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 380 ITR 449 (Gujarat) xii) .QX KPO Services(P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) 414 ITR 429 (Gujarat) xiii).Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. QX Kpo Services(P)Ltd, (2018) 259 Taxman 317 (SC) xiv) State Bank of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, he cannot be permitted to achieve the said object by taking recourse to initiating a proceeding of re-assessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the Revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the Revenue. 16. In Bawa Abhai Singh's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) is a Member, clearly held: "The crucial expression is "reason to believe". The expression predicates that the Assessing Officer must hold a belief ... by the existence of reasons for holding such a belief. In other words, it contemplates existence of reasons on which the belief is founded and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belief may not be based merely on reasons but it must be founded on information. As was observed in Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC), the expression "reason to believe" is stronger than the expression "is satisfied". The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed by the petitioner. 25. For the assessment year, the assessments were re-opened after the expiry of normal period of limitation just three days before the expiry of limitation under proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in 2004-05 and two months before for the Assessment Year 2005-06. If there was any failure to truly and fully disclose all information that were required for assessment under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invocation of the machinery under Section 148 read with proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be said to be justified. 26. In this case, at the time of assessment, for the Assessment Year 2004-05 the details were called for from the petitioner vide notice dated 17.8.2006 issued under Section 143 (2)/142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In its reply dated 30.8.2006, the petitioner declared that it had paid a total sum of Rs. 68,89,14,292/- as freight. During assessment, only a sum of Rs. 6,08,98,646/-from the aforesaid amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is no case made out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
