DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata V. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros Coal Sales Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 321/KOL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata as the appellant and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited as the respondent. The appeals pertain to the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The primary issues in the appeals were related to the Transfer Pricing adjustments concerning the fees/commission for Corporate Guarantees provided by the assessee on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (AE). The Revenue challenged the CIT(Appeals)'s decision which had deleted the adjustments made by the TPO. The Tribunal examined the methodology adopted by the TPO and the CIT(Appeals)'s reasoning, ultimately upholding the CIT(Appeals)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302313 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom), Berger Paints India Limited in ITA Nos. 917 & 918/KOL/2017 dated 29.07.2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 2; 43B; 143(3); 92B; 144C; 139(1); 92CA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [PAN;AABCK1281H] Appearances by: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Date of concluding the hearing : January 02, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member: Revenue is in appeals before the Tribunal against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-22, both dated 29.06.2021, against assessment order passed by ld. DCIT/TPO-II, Kolkata u/s 143(3) rws 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2018 for AY ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 2 2015-16 and by ACIT-5(1), Kolkata dated 28.11.2019 for AY 2016-17. 2. At the outset, we take note that there is a delay of three days in filing the present appeals. Impugned order by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is dated 29.06.2021 owing to which the limitation period for filing the appeals before the Tribunal falls during the period of pandemic of COVID-19. It is noted that the period of delay falls during the time of Pandemic of Covid-19, which has been excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 by which the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been directed to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Vide this order a further period of 90 days has been granted for providing the limitation from 01.03.2022. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matters. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:- Assessment Year: 2015-2016 (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 7,53,60,879 (later on rectified at 7,71,77,867) made on account of Corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AE. (2) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following a recognised approach for arriving at the CG Fee and further erred in arbitrarily adopting a rate of CG Fees based on judgments which are factually distinguishable. (3) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Interest Saved approach adopted by the TPO is a legally valid method for ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 3 arriving at the CG Fee to be charged by the assessee from its AE. (4) That on the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that, based on facts of the case, standalone rating of AE ought to be taken for the purpose of arriving at the interest saved. (5) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act to only those payments made beyond the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. From the perusal of grounds, broadly two issues are involved, one relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of fees / commission for Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (in short ‘AE’), and the second relating to disallowance towards deposit of employee PF & ESI contribution claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since payment was made beyond the due date of filing the return. 5. On the second issue relating to disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been raised only in appeal for AY 2015-16 , ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 4 “The deduction made by employers to approved provident fund schemes, is the subject matter of Section 36(1) (iv). It is noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various kinds of "income" – inserted clause (x). This is a significant amendment, because Parliament intended that amounts not earned by the assessee, but received by it, - whether in the form of deductions, or otherwise, as receipts, were to be treated as income. The inclusion of a class of receipt, i.e., amounts received (or deducted from the employees) were to be part of the employer/assessee's income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated as deductions. Section 36(1)(va) was hedged with the condition that the amounts/receipts had to be deposited by the employer, with the EPF/ESI, on or before the due date. The last expression "due date" was dealt with in the explanation as the date by which such amounts had to be credited by the employer, in the concerned enactments such as EPF/ESI Acts. Importantly, such a condition (i.e., depositing the amount on or before the due date) has not been enacted in relation to the employer's contribution (i.e., Section 36(1)(iv)). The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is described as "sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund". However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section 36(1)(iv). It enacts that "any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date." The essential character of an employees' contribution, i.e., that it is part of the employees' income, held in trust by the employer is underlined by the condition that it has to be deposited on or before the due date. The differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between the two. ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 5 There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, which mandated that unless the amount of employers' contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that as long as the employer deposited the dues, before filing the return of income tax, the deduction was available. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions – especially second proviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as income - it is the character of the amount that is important, i.e., not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee's income by way of deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer. The significance of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of "income" amounts that were receipts or deductions from employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, Section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 6 regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from the total income. The essential objective of Section 43B is to ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, actual payments were a necessary pre-condition for allowing the expenditure. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under Section 43B. The non-obstante clause in section 43B would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation under section 36(1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute. Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as deposits are made beyond the due date, but before the date of filing the return, the deduction is allowed. That, however, cannot apply in the case of amounts which are held in trust, as it is in the case of employees' contributions- which are deducted from their income. They are not part of the assessee employer's income, nor are they heads of deduction per se in the form of statutory pay out. They are others' income, monies, only deemed to be income, with the object of ensuring that they are paid within the due date specified in the particular law. They have to be deposited in terms of such welfare enactments. It is upon deposit, in terms of those enactments and on or before the due ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 7 dates mandated by such concerned law, that the amount which is otherwise retained, and deemed an income, is treated as a deduction. Thus, it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts are deposited on or before the due date. If such interpretation were to be adopted, the non-obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.” 5.1. Accordingly, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), this ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. Now taking up the issue relating to upward adjustment for fees / commission for Corporate Guarantee, there are two appeals by the Revenue, one for AY 2015-16 and the other for AY 2016-17. Grounds taken by the Revenue in both the years are same in respect of addition made towards Corporate Guarantee Fees except for variation in the amount. Appeal for both the years is disposed of by this consolidated order. We take up the appeal relating to AY 2015-16, whose findings will apply mutatis mutandis to the other year of AY 2016-17 also. We thus, take up facts from AY 2015-16 for adjudication on the issue. 7. At the outset, ld. Counsel submitted that the issue is settled and fairly covered in favour of the assessee which the ld. CIT(Appeals) has exhaustively dealt with in his order by considering the facts of the case as well as the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom) as well as by ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 8 the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Berger Paints India Limited in ITA Nos. 917 & 918/KOL/2017 dated 29.07.2022. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Coal Sales. It filed its return of income on 30.11.2015 reporting total income of Rs.34,64,50,050/-. Assessment was completed inter alia, by making an upward adjustment and addition thereto under section 92CA of Rs.7,53,60,879/- in respect of fees for Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AE. 9. Factual matrix in respect of the addition made towards Corporate Guarantee Fee which is under challenge by the Revenue before us are extracted as under:- ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 9 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 10 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 11 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 12 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 13 11. Aggrieved by the above upward adjustment, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). After elaborate discussion on the factual matrix as well as the applicable law and the judicial precedents, ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made in this respect. While giving relief to the assessee, ld. CIT(Appeals) dealt with the proposition of treating the Corporate Guarantee as an International Transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. He also dealt with the proposition relating to Corporate Guarantee being purely owner-shareholder activity in respect of the adjustment so made. Ld. CIT(Appeals) also analyzed the manner and methodology adopted by the ld. TPO for the purpose of arriving at an upward adjustment towards fees for Corporate Guarantee after considering plethora of judgments including those stated above. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee has already charged Corporate Guarantee Fee @ 0.50% from its AE, no upward adjustment is called for and thus deleted the same. Detailed and analytical observations and findings given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) are reproduced as under:- ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 14 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 15 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 16 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 17 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 18 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 19 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 20 11.1. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. Before us, ld. Sr. D.R. vehemently argued and supported the “interest saved approach” applied by the ld. TPO, which according to him is a well recognized method. Ld. Sr. D.R. also referred to the yield approach mentioned in the latest guidance of fiscal transaction issued by OECD. According to ld. Sr. D.R., the approach adopted by ld. TPO to assign 50% of the interest saved as Corporate Guarantee Fee to the assessee, deserves to be upheld. In this respect, he also made a written submission, which is placed on record. He thus strongly supported the order of the ld. TPO/A.O. to uphold the upward adjustment made in respect of Corporate Guarantee Fee. 13. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions and relied on the judicial precedents referred above. The same are not repeated to avoid duplicity. 14. We take note of the position that the issue in respect of Corporate Guarantee Fee is no longer res integra, which has been dealt in favour of the assessee by plethora of decisions referred above and dealt elaborately by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order. In most of the decisions referred above, the rate of Guarantee Fee has been taken to be in the range of 0.3% to 0.5%. In the present case, it is admittedly a fact on record that assessee suo motu has charged Guarantee Fee @ 0.50% from its AE. We also take note of the observations made by ld. CIT(A) in respect of basis of ‘CCC’ credit rating adopted by the ld. TPO for the purpose of benchmarking of fee towards Corporate Guarantee which is ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 21 devoid of any comparative factual data. Also, ld. CIT(A) has considered the equal split of benchmarking rate arrived by ld. TPO between the assessee and its AE which doesn’t bear any rationality. 15. Further, this issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Berger Paints India Limited (supra) and the relevant observations and findings, which deal with the identical issue in hand, are reproduced as under:- ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 22 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 23 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, detailed findings given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as extracted above, plethora of decisions dealt herein and the fact that the assessee itself has suo motu charged Guarantee Fees/Commission @ 0.50%, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly grounds taken by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. 17. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajpal Yadav) (Girish Agrawal) Vice-President (KZ) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 28 th day of February, 2023 ITA Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd 24 Copies to :(1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (2) Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited, 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-22; (3) Commissioner of Income Tax- ; (4) The Departmental Representative (5) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.