TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Revenue : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the separate impugned orders of even date 16/10/2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [ learned CIT(A) ], for the assessment years 2016 17, 2017 18 and 2018 19. 2. When the present batch of appeals was called for hearing neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to dispose off the present appeals ex parte, qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative ( learned DR ) and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Since the appeals pertain to the same assessee involving similar issues, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. ITA no.3145/Mum./2022 Revenue s Appeal A.Y. 2016 17 4. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payment made by the assessee to Celltick Israel is in the nature of Royalty under the provisions of the India Israel tax treaty and the same would be taxable in India at the rate of 10% of the gross amount of the royalties. Since the assessee has not deducted TDS while making the said payment, the AO made an addition of Rs.26,51,98,008 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 6. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2014-15. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned DR vehemently relied upon the order passed by the AO 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in Celltick Mobile (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, in ITA No. 1673/Mum./2020, vide order dated 26/03/2021, for the assessment year 2014-15 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted similar add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the 1st proviso to section 201(1). It shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the taxes on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the payee referred to in the said proviso. As per proviso to section 201(1), a payee shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such payee, (a) furnished its return of income under section 139, (b) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income and (c) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income and along with such payee furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant as per form prescribed for this purpose. 17. In the given case, we notice that the payee has already furnished certificate from a chartered accountant, return of income and computation of income under section 139. Further we also noticed that the income of the payee is not chargeable to tax in India as per the decision of the coordinate bench. Even though as submitted by learned DR that the matter of payee is pending before High Court. In our view, as far as the curre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in the preceding assessment year. The learned CIT(A) also noted that the AO while passing the assessment order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16, accepted the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and made no addition on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment made to Celltick Israel. In the impugned order, it is also noted that the reopening proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14 have also been dropped, which were proposed to be reopened on the same grounds. No material contrary to the aforesaid findings in the impugned order was brought on record by the Revenue. Further, the learned DR could not show us any reason to deviate from the aforesaid decision rendered in assessee s own case. Thus, respectfully following the order passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case cited supra, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). As a result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA no.3146/Mum./2022 Revenue s Appeal A.Y. 2017 18 11. In its appeal, the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
