DY CIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI V. IDEA CELLULAR LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LTD.), MUMBAI

ITA 42/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0100 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VRUSHTI GALANI
• Keywords: Question of law; TDS
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 42/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 43/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 44/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Room No. 718, 7 th Floor, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Road (W), Mumbai - 400002 Vs. M/s Idea Cellular Limited (Now known as Vodafone Idea Limited), 3 rd Floor, Windsor, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400098 PAN: AAACB2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri R.A. Dhyani (DR) Assessee by : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ms. Vrushti Galani (ARs) Date of Hearing : 16/11/2021 Date of order: 17/01/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: Captioned appeals by the revenue arise out of three separate orders, all dated 27.01.2020, of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Before, we proceed to decide the appeals, it is necessary to observe, registry has notified delay of 219 days in filing these appeals. However, it is the 2 ITA Nos. 42-44/MUM/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 stand of the revenue before us that due to prevailing pandemic condition the period of limitation for filing of appeals etc. have been extended by the Government. Accepting the submissions of learned Departmental Representative, we admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. The common dispute arising in all these appeals relates to deletion of demand raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common, in all appeals are that the assessee earlier known as Ideal Cellular Ltd. is engaged in the business of providing mobile telephone and other related services to customers. A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee for verifying compliance with tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions. During the survey, it was found that though the assessee is paying commission to distributors/agents towards prepaid and post paid connections, starter packs etc. however, it had not deducted tax at source under section 194H of the Act. Based on the information obtained during the survey, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceeding under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. In course of proceeding, when the AO called upon the assessee to explain the reason for not deducting tax at source on the alleged commission paid to distributors/agents, the assessee submitted that the transaction between the assessee and the distributors are on principal-to-principal basis and is basically, transaction of sales. It was submitted, the discount given to the distributors on sale of SIM cards/starter packs cannot be considered to be in the nature of commission. The AO, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and 3 ITA Nos. 42-44/MUM/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 proceeded to pass orders under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act raising demands as under:- Assessment Year: 2009-10 - Rs. 1,45,20,479/- Assessment Year: 2010-11- Rs. 1,72,52,108/- Assessment Year: 2010-11- Rs. 52,75,520/- 4. Against the orders passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, assessee preferred appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Considering the fact that in assessee’s own case in Assessment Year 2012-13, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that discount given to the distributors is not in the nature of commission, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the demands raised by the AO. While doing so, he also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (ITA No. 7020 of 2017). 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the issue has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in its own case not only by the Tribunal but by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In this context, he drew our attention to relevant orders of the Tribunal and jurisdictional High Court placed on record. Further, he submitted, identical issue has also been decided in case of various other assessees. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. PCIT v. M/s Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 702 of 2017) (Bom HC) 2. ACIT Vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 4677 & 6726/M/2012) (Mum Trib) 4 ITA Nos. 42-44/MUM/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 3. DCIT Vs. M/s Tata Tele Services (Mah.) Ltd. (ITA No. 3857/Mum/2016) (Mum Trib) 6. The learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed that the Tribunal and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court have decided the issue in favour of the assessee, however, he relied upon the observations of the AO. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is, whether the discount given to the distributors on sale of SIM Card/starter pack is in the nature of commission to fall within the mischief of section 194H of the Act. Undisputedly, the Tribunal and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court have decided identical dispute arising in assessee’s own case in different assessment years in its favor. In this context, we refer to the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3785/Mum/2016 dated 13.11.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13. In fact, while deciding identical issues in assesseee’s own case ITA No. 1129 of 2017 vide order dated 13.01.2020, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held as under: 2. The Appellant-Revenue challenges the order dated 4 January 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No. 1041, 1042 and 1953 to 1955/PUN/2013. 3. This Appeal pertains to the Assessment Year is 2010-11. 4. The Appellant-Revenue has raised the following questions as substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the c and in law, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding the discount given by the assessee to its distributors on prepaid SIM Cards does not require deduction of tax under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act ? 5 ITA Nos. 42-44/MUM/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the case to the Assessing Officer ?” 5. The Tribunal noted the observations of the Assessing Officer that the discount allowed to the distributors by the Respondent — assessee company is on account of principal to principal relationship and not that of principal to agent. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT [372 ITR 33] and held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to the distributors was not commission and therefore not liable to deduct the TDS under Section 194H. The Tribunal noted that there was no decision of this Court on this issue on that date. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have tendered the copy of the order passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 702 of 2017 subsequently in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Ms, Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., where same issue arose for the consideration of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court while holding against the Appellant — Revenue observed thus : “3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as noted, besides holding that the Commissioner’s order setting aside the order passed under Section 201 was not carried in appeal, had also independently examined the nature of the transaction and come to the conclusion that when the transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per section 194H of the Act, would not be made since the payment was not for commission or brokerage.” 7. In view of the finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal which we have noted above, the same principle would apply in the present case. Therefore, the questions of law as proposed do not give any rise to substantial question of law. The Appeal is disposed of." 8. Even, in case of other mobile telephone service providers identical view has been expressed by the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court as evident from the decisions cited before us. In fact, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of 6 ITA Nos. 42-44/MUM/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 DCIT vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (supra). Thus, considering the factual position that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, holding that the discount paid by the assessee to the distributors is not in the nature of commission, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Grounds raised are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeals are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) PRESIDENT (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated: 17/01/2022 Alindra, PS आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai