Shelf Drilling International Inc. (formerly known as Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc.), New Delhi V. Addl. DIT, Dehradun

ITA 1214/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6467 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1214/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHELF DRILLING INTERNATIONAL INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL DRILLING INC.), C/O NANGIA & COMPANY, SUITE 4A, PLAZA M-6, JASOLA, NEW DELHI. VS. ADDL. DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN. PAN : AACCS 9208 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI AMIT ARORA, CA REVENUE BY SHRI S. K. JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 23 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 .1 2 .2016 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2013 OF THE CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN P ERTAINING TO 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY AF FIRMING TO THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HOLDING THAT THE AMOUN TS AGGREGATING TO RS.186,120,421/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS AS REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE ON THEIR BEHALF, IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS U/S 44BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THE AFORESAID GROUND IS COVERED AGAINST IT BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANOTHER VS. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC. (2008) 300 ITR 265 (UTTARAKH AND). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT MAY BE RECORDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE IS BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT THUS IT MAY BE RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN UP THE ISSUE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDEIRNG THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2013 PASSED BY T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA 2 ITA NO.1214/DEL/2014 NO.504/DEL/2013 IN 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LD. AR HIMSELF, WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL GROUND HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ON IDENTICAL FAC TS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 5. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL READS AS U NDER:- 'THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNTS AGGR EGATING TO RS.284,583,205/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM ITS CUSTOMERS AS REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE AP PELLANT ON THEIR BEHALF IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS U/S 44BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.' 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FAIRLY AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND AN OTHER VS. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC. - [2008] 300 ITR 265 (UTTARAKHAND). THE FACTS IN T HE SAID CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE RENDERED SERVICES TO TH E ONGC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, IT CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF `6,16,9 89/- RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ACTUALLY INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT WAS NOT INCLUDIBLE WHILE COMPUTING ITS INCOME UNDER SECTION 44BB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM BUT THE CI T(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED IT. ON APPEAL, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER :- 'HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT IT WAS NOT IN DISP UTE THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE NON-RESIDENT COMPANY RENDERING SERVICES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB TO TH E ONGC AND IMPOSED THE INCOME TAX THEREON. HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN DOING S O.' 7. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE REJECT GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE'S A PPEAL. 4. ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE PARTIES RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ON THE SAME PARI TY OF REASONING, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE RECORD, NO CHANGE IN FACTS OR LAW WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD.AR EXCEPT THAT THE ISSUE IS PENDIN G BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- SS/- SDSS ( A. N. MISHRA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED : 16-12-2016. SUJEET/AMIT KUMAR 3 ITA NO.1214/DEL/2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI