Beiersdorf India Pvt. Ltd, Panaji V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

ITA 11/PAN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1474 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.11/PAN/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Beiersdorf India Pvt. Ltd., 1 st Floor, CMM Building, Rua-De-Ourem, Panaji GOA – 403 001. PAN AAACB7395L vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri D.E. Robinson For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the National Faceless Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”) Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058917812(1), dated 20.12.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA No.11/PAN/2024 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the entire salary payment made to salesmen employed. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of salary paid to salesmen ignoring the Appellate orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the same subject which orders were confirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court in assessments of earlier years.” 3. It next emerges during the course of hearing that the very issue of sec.194 r.w.s.40(a)(ia) disallowance had also arisen in preceding assessment year as well and this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in ITA.No.189/PAN./2018 dated 15.06.2022 has decided the same against the department as under : “3. The learned senior DR, supporting the assessment order, submitted that the payment made by the assessee to ISR through carriage and forwarding agents is a commission paid for sale of goods which was in the nature of commission liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned Sr. DR vehemently pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has erred in stating and comparing these payments with salary payments wherein TDS is not only when 3 ITA No.11/PAN/2024 employee has income in excess of minimum amount chargeable to tax when the fact is that these are no salary payments and there is nothing on record to show employer-employee relationship between the assessee and the person who have received payments. Replying to the above, the learned counsel for the assessee, placing copies of the orders of the ITAT, Panaji Bench dated 28.11.2016 in ITA No.173/PAN/2016 and dated 14.07.2017 in ITA No.67/PAN/2016 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively, submitted that the sole issue in the Revenue's appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal for the immediately preceding two years wherein it has been held that after perusing the C&F Agreements and also the statement of remuneration paid to ISR, copies of appointing orders, samples of the expenses, claim settlements and also copies of the sample bills in respect of expenses, which had been claimed as reimbursement which are basically travel expenses as also the good and lodging expenses. It was also held that the cost to the company in respect of salary did not exceed the basic minimum liability to tax, therefore, that being so, the findings of the learned CIT (A) are after appreciating the facts and the Revenue has not been able to dislodge these findings of facts. With these observations the appeal of the Revenue for both the years 4 ITA No.11/PAN/2024 have been dismissed by the Tribunal. The learned Sr. DR has candidly agreed to the fact that the facts and circumstances pertaining to the sole issue of the instant year are quite same and similar to the facts and circumstances for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013- 14, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the issue in question i.e., the requirement of TDS deduction u/s 194H of the Act on reimbursement of expenses is not applicable and so the learned CIT(A) was right in allowing relief to the assessee by following the orders of the Tribunal for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in para 3.3 of the first appellate order. It is also relevant to note that the learned Sr. DR has also not controvered that the appeals of the Revenue before Hon'ble Bombay High Court have been withdrawn on 11.11.2019 by the Department and the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee finally. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reach to a final conclusion that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and since the facts and circumstances of the present assessment year 2014-15 are quite same and similar with the said two immediately preceding assessment years, therefore, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the 5 ITA No.11/PAN/2024 assessee and we hold so. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed.” 4. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis in absence of any distinction of facts in both these assessment years and accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. The assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2024 Sd/- Sd/- [RAMA KANTA PANDA] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25 th June, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Panaji concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, Panaji-Bench, Panaji. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.