Energy Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi

ITA 5410/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2943 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Wholly owned subsidiary; Right to appeal; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 13

Judgement Text

FIT FOR PUBLICATION SD/- S D/- (AS) (ANM) J.M. A.M IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEM BER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4801/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ITA NO. 5964/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ITA NO. 5410/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ENERGY INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 14, FACTORY ROAD, BLOCK NO. A, GROUND FLOOR, ADJ. VARDHMAN MAHAVIR MEDICAL COLLEGE, SAFDARJUNG, NEW DELHI- 110029 PAN : AAICS4105R VS . DCIT CIRCLE 8(1) NEW DELHI APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SH. PUNEET THUKRAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. AVIKAL MANU, SR. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND B REVITY; AND ARE HEREBY DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER . GROUNDS TAKEN IN THESE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) ITA NO. 4801/DEL/2016, A. Y. : 2010-11 1) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 86,41,053/-. 2) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT DISPOSING OFF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE WHICH PRIMARILY RELATED TO ADDITION MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AS WELL AS NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMEN T MADE TO NON RESIDENTS AND FURTHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE SAME DISALLOWANCE ON AN ALTOGETHER NEW BASIS . 3) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FA CTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 86,4 1,053/- BEING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY IN UNITED STATES FOR DEVELO PMENT OF ITS BUSINESS IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :- I) ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. II) ON THE BASIS THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FOR TAX PURPOSES IN THE UNITED STATES. III) WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AND MATERIAL PLACED AND MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN RES PECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND /OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEF ORE THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO. 5964/DEL/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 1) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,57,472/-. 2) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT DISPOSING OFF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE WHICH PRIMARILY RELATED TO ADDI TION MADE BY 3 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AS WELL AS NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMEN T MADE TO NON RESIDENTS AND FURTHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE SAME DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF PREVIOUS YEAR APPEAL ORDER IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. 3) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FA CTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.44,57 ,472/- BEING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY IN UNITED STATES FOR DEVELO PMENT OF ITS BUSINESS IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :- I) ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. II) ON THE BASIS THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A SEPARATE LEGAL EN TITY FOR TAX PURPOSES IN THE UNITED STATES. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND /OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEF ORE THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO. 5410/DEL/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 1) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,68,254/-. 2) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT DISPOSING OFF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE WHICH PRIMARILY RELATED TO ADDITION MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AS WELL AS NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMEN T MADE TO NON RESIDENTS. 3) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF PREVIOUS YEAR APPEAL O RDER IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTU NITY TO FILE DETAIL OF EXPENSES AND FURTHER ERRED IN STATIN G IN THE APPEAL ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY D ETAILS OF THE EXPENSES. 4) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FA CTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,6 8,254/- BEING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY IN UNITED STATES FOR DEVELO PMENT OF ITS BUSINESS IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :- 4 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) I) ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. II) ON THE BASIS THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FOR TAX PURPOSES IN THE UNITED STATES. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND /OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEF ORE THE TIME OF HEARING. (A.1) IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN IN COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THREE PAPER BOOKS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS : S. NO. PARTICULARS 1. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT 2. ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I. TAX ACT. 3. FORM NO. 35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIDE LETTER DATED 17.02.2015 5. FIRST SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT(A) 6. ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT(A) 7. LETTER TO AO DATED 20.07.2012 ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET & ITR OF ENERGY INFRATECH INC. 8. NOTE ON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FILED WITH AO 9. COMPLETE SET OF BALANCE SHEET OF ENERGY INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 10. REPLY TO CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 12.03.2014 11. REPLY TO CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 20.03.2014 12. REPLY TO CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 20.06.2014 13. REPLY TO CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 10.05.2016 14. ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DATED 08.06.2016 15. ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I. TAX ACT 16. FORM NO. 35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 17. FIRST SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT(A) 18. COMPLETE SET OF BALANCE SHEET OF ENERGY INFRATECH INC. 5 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) 19. COMPLETE SET OF BALANCE SHEET OF ENERGY INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 20. ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DATED 02.09.2016 21. ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.TAX ACT 22. FORM NO. 35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 23. REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIDE LETTER DATED 06.04.2015 24. FIRST SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT(A) 25. COMPLETE SET OF BALANCE SHEET OF ENERGY INFRATECH INC. 26. COMPLETE SET OF BALANCE SHEET OF ENERGY INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 27. ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DATED 02.09.2016 (B) WE TAKE THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 VIDE ITA NO . 4801/DEL/2016 FIRST. THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS BUSINES S IS RENDERING ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR THE POWER PROJECTS. THE COMPANY IS ALSO ENGAGED IN POWER GENE RATION THROUGH WINDMILLS FARM. THE ASSESSEE HAS A SUBSIDIA RY COMPANY WHICH REGISTERED IN UNITED STATE OF AMERICA (USA). THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS ENERGY INFRATE CH INC. (EII FOR SHORT). THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION AMOU NTING TO RS. 86,41,053/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES WHICH WAS INCURR ED BY EID, THE ASSESSEES USA BASED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. THIS A MOUNT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF EXPENSES I NCURRED IN THE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY NAMELY ENERGY INFRATECH INC. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 02.07.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 2 0.07.2012 THAT' THE COMPANY IS NOT CONSOLIDATING THE ACCOUNTS OF ENERGY INFRATECH INC. AND SEPARATE RETURN OF INCOME IS BEING 6 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) FILED IN USA.' THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE CO PY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN OF ENERGY INFRATECH INC. USA. HOW EVER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE NOTES TO ACCOUNT OF TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DONE EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TOWARDS ENERGY INFRATECH INC. OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,01,66,677/- AN D DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.86,41,053/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE FOREIG N SUBSIDIARY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE FOREIGN SUBSID IARY IS FILING ITS OWN INCOME-TAX RETURN IN USA. THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED THAT 'THE COMPANY HAS BEEN EXPLORING VARIOUS INTERN ATIONAL MARKETS SPECIALIZED SERVICES. IN THE PROCESS, THE C OMPANY DECIDED TO EXPLORE THE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN US A AND OTHER MARKETS ABROAD. IT IS A TREND IN USA THAT THEY PREFERRED USA BASED ENTITIES FOR AVAILING SERVICING RATHER THA N THE IMPORTING THE SERVICES. KEEPING THESE LOCAL REQUIRE MENTS OF USA CLIENTS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SET UP WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY IN USA INSTEAD OF OPENING THE BRANCH OF THE COMPANY FOR MARKETING OPERATIONS. THE FUNCTIONAL OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES IS TO PROCURE CONSULTANCY ASSI GNMENT TO THE PARENT COMPANY FOR MARKETING COMMISSION OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT. IN CASE OF FAILURE TO PROCURE BUSINESS FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL. INTHE PROCESS ENERGY INFRATECHINC. INCURRED EXPENSE S UNDER VARIOUS HEADS SUCH AS RENT, SALARIES, TELEPHONE, TR AVEL AND CONVEYANCE ETC. AND CLAIMED REIMBURSE SUBMITTING AL L NECESSARY BILLS AND DOCUMENTARY PROOF AND CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT FROM THECOMPANYVHICH WERE PAID ON QUARTERLY BASIS'. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT WAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT IS VER Y CLEAR THAT THE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME IS ALREADY TAKING THE ALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. SO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY THE PARENT COMPANY I.E. ENERGY INFRATECH (P) LTD. IS A DOUBLE DEDUCTION BEING CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY THE ABOVE SAID REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THESE PAYMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT IN ITA NO.3449 OF 2002 IN THE CASE OF M/S ACIT , CIRCLE 23(2) VS MODICON NETWORK (P) LTD. THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERED BUT NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. 7 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(1)(I) AND 9(1 )(VII) AS APPLICABLE ARE REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- SECTION 9 - INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN IND IA 1. THE FOLLOWING INCOMES SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRU E OR ARISE IN INDIA:- (I) ALL INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING, WHETHER DIRECTL Y OR INDIRECTLY, THROUGH OR FROM ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA, OR THROUGH OR FROM ANY PROPERTY IN INDIA, OR THROUG H OR FROM ANY ASSET OR SOURCE OF INCOME IN INDIA, OR THROUGH THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET SITUATE IN INDIA. EXPLANATION 1 - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE:- (A) IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS OF WHICH ALL THE OPERATIONS ARE NOT CARRIED OUT IN INDIA, THE INCOME OF THE BUSINES S DEEMED UNDER THIS CLAUSE TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA SHALL BE ONLY SUCH PART OF THE INCOME AS IS REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA; (B) IN THE CASE OF A NON RESIDENT, O INCOME SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA TO HIM THROUGH O R FROM OPERATIONS WHICH ARE CONFINED TO THE PURCHASE OF GO ODS IN INDIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPORT; (C) IN THE CASE OF A NON RESIDENT, BEING A PERSONS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A NEWS AGENCY OR OF PUBL ISHING NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES OR JOURNALS, NO INCOME SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA TO HIM THROUGH O R FROM ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE CONFINED TO THE COLLECTION OF NEWS AND VIEWS IN INDIA FOR TRANSMISSION OUT OF INDIA. - INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYA BLE BY - (A) THE GOVERNMENT; OR (B) A PERSONS WHO IS A RESIDENT, EXCEPT WHERE THE FEES ARE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES UTILIZE IN A BUSINES S OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY SUCH PERSONS OUTSIDE OR FO R THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING ANY INCOME FROM ANY S OURCE OUTSIDE INDIA; OR (C) A PERSON WHO IS A NON RESIDENT, WHERE THE FEES ARE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES UTILIZED IN A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY SUCH PERSONS IN INDIA OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING ANY INCOME FROM ANY S OURCE IN INDIA. PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CLAUSE SHAL L APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE BEFORE TH E 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1976, AND APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOV ERNMENT. 8 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) EXPLANATION 1- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FOREGOING PR OVISO, AN AGREEMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 197 6 SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THAT DATE IF THE AGREEMENT IS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROPOSALS APPR OVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BEFORE THAT DATE. EXPLANATION 2 - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, ' FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CONSIDERATION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBL Y, MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONS IDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE U NDER THE HEAD 'SALARIES'. IN THIS CASE, THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE NON-RESI DENT COMPANY I.E. ENERGY INFRATECH INC. ARE BEING UTILIZ ED IN INDIA AND CLEARLY TAXABLE U/S 9(1)(I) AND 9(1 )(VII)(B) O F INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHAT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE 'MARKETING COMMISSION OR REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCU RRED BY ENERGY INFRATECH INC. IN CASE OF FAILURE TO PROCURE BUSINESS FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL' PAID BY ENERGY INFRATECH (P) LTD FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF (VII)(B ) OF SECTION 9(1). AS PER THE SAID CLAUSE, INCOME BY WAY OF TECHN ICAL SERVICES PAYABLE BY A PERSONS WHO IS A RESIDENT ARE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES UTILIZED IN A BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION CARRIED ON BY SUCH PERSONS OUTSIDE INDIA OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING ANY INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE OUT SIDE INDIA SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. EXPLANATION -2 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION 'FEES FOR TEC HNICAL SERVICES' TO MEAN ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CONSIDERATION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY TECHNIC AL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF SE RVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MININ G OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATIO N WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE HEAD 'SALARIES'. THUS, FROM THE COMBINED READING OF CLAUSE 9(1 )(I) AND (VI)(B) AND EXPLANTION-2 IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ANY CONSIDERATION WHETHER LUMP SUM OTHERWISE PAID BY A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT IN INDIA TO A NON-RESIDENT FOR RUNNING ANY 9 ITA NO. 4801, 5 964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) MANAGERIAL SERVICE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ' INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA'. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS THE MARKETING COMMISSION / REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WHICH IS PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY TO ITS SUBSIDIARY ENERGY INFRATECH INC. WOU LD BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX. THEREFORE, FROM THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y TO ENERGY INFRATECH INC. IS COVERED BOTH U/S 9(1 )(I) AND 9(1 )(VII) OF THE I T ACT. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT NO TDS H AS BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194H ON THE SAME AMOUNT, THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.86,41,053/- IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOW ED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A) OF THE I T ACT. PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS INITIATED SEPAR ATELY FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. (ADDITION: 86,41,053/-) (C) THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) WHO CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE, HOLDING AS UN DER :- 2.1. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THE MATERIAL FACTS PLACED ON THE RECORD , IT EMERGES FROM THE FACTS THAT A SUBSIDIARY BY THE NAM E ENERGY INFRATECH INC. IN USA WHO IS A SEPARATE TAX ENTITY AND ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXPENDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 86,41,053/- WHICH HAS BE EN CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH EXPLORATION OF BUSINESS IN THE UNIT ED STATES OF AMERICA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITE D EXPENDITURE OF RS. 86,41,053/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS WHICH PERTAIN TO THE SUBSIDIARY EXPENDED IN THE UNI TED STATES. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE COMPANY WAS EXPLORIN G THE BUSINESS AVENUES IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EXPEN DITURE HAS BEEN MADE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINE SS CONDUCTED BY THE COMPANY. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY DETAILS OF THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN THE UNITED STATES. THE COUNSE L OF THE 10 ITA NO. 4801, 5964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED BY THIS OFFICE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE COMPANY IN TH E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELL ANT VIDE LETTER DATED 09.05.2016 FILED THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEASE DEAD SIGNED TO TAKE ON LEASE THE RESIDENTIAL APARTM ENT. THE COPY OF LEASE IS APPENDED AT PAGES 54-59 OF THE PAP ER BOOKS. THE LEASE HAS BEEN SIGNED ON 14.08.2008 EFFE CTIVE FROM 1ST OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 AT THE MONTHLY RENTAL O F RS. 6500 US$ AND THE LESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ENERGY INFRATECH INCORPORATION REGISTERED IN THE UNITED ST ATES. THE CLAUSE 1 STATES VERY CLEARLY THAT THE APARTMENT IS TO BE USED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE PAGES AT SI. NO. 60 TO 62 OF THE P/B CONTAIN THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. PRASAD SURAPANEM AS VICE PRESIDENT (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) AT THE MONTHLY SALARY OF US$ 6500 AND THE APPOINTMENT LETTER HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. ENERGY INFR ATECH INCORPORATION. VARIOUS PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN FILED TO MAKE THE CLAIM FOR THE VARIOUS EXPENSES. THE CAB CHARGES @ 1000 US$ PER MONTH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS THE EXPENDITURE. VARIOUS COPIES OF OTHER BILLS OF FOOD, SNACKS,-STATIONERY ,,GAS, COMMUNICAT ION ETC. HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THE COUNSEL HAS HOWEVER, BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHOLL Y AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. NO EVI DENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS TO SH OW THAT THE COMPANY MADE CONCERTED EFFECTS TO LOCATE A NY BUSINESS AVENUES IN USA. THE LEASE RENTAL DEED, THE APPOINTMENT LETTER AND OTHER COPIES OF THE BILLS PR ODUCED FOR THE VERIFICATION CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE EXPE NDITURE HAS BEEN MADE BY M/S. ENERGY INFRATECH INC. USA WHO IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FOR TAX PURPOSES IN THE UNITE D STATES OF AMERICA. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF T HE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 86,41,053/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. (D) THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A), DATED 08.06.2016. 11 ITA NO. 4801, 5964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) (E) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS.86,41,053/- WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES T O SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS; AND FURTH ER THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO SHOW THAT THE EII MADE CONC ERTED EFFECTS TO LOCATE ANY BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS IN USA. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS REASONING FOR DISALLOWA NCE WAS NOT ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) DEPARTED FROM THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAK ING THE DISALLOWANCE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSME NT ORDER TO SHOW THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A DOUBLE DEDUCTION; AND FURTHER THAT CLAIM WAS HIT BY SECTIO N 40(A) OF INCOME TAX ACT. HE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO TH E FACT THAT THE VALIDITY OF THESE GROUNDS FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWAN CE WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A); AND INSTEAD THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED A ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REASONING, AS AFORESAID, FOR C ONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD GOT NO OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE REASONING ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO P RODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND TO FILE NECESSARY SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE REASONING ADOPT ED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AG REED THAT THE 12 ITA NO. 4801, 5964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) MATTER NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , BOTH SIDES, THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DISPUTE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF THE AFORESAID RS. 86,41,0 53/- MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ORDER AS PER LAW. (F) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE FIRST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER; BEFORE HE IS FORCED TO EXPLAIN H IS CASE TO APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IF AN ASSESSEE EXPLAINS HIS CASE AT THE FIRST STAGE, I.E. AT THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER; THE MATTER, IN A WAY, ATTAINS LIMITED FINALITY BECAUSE REVENUE HAS NO R IGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH THE MATTER CAN BE REVISITED BY REVENUE UNDER EXCEPTIONA L CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTIONS 147, 263, 264, 154, 153A 153C, ETC. OF I.T.ACT; THE FACT THAT REVENUE HAS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IMPLIES THAT THE MATTER ATTAINS LIMITED FINALITY, BARRING THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS AFOREMENTIONED, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT IS WHY IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT THE ASS ESSEE GETS PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AT THE FIRST STAG E (I.E. AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER), SO THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS A CHANCE TO AVAIL OF LIMITED FINALITY WHICH IS AN ASSESSEES 13 ITA NO. 4801, 5964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) STATUTORY RIGHT. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE REASONING ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISMISSING THE ASSESS EES APPEAL WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER; WHICH HAS RESULTED IN VIOLAT ION OF THE ASSESSEES RIGHT OF LIMITED FINALITY. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND AS BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED TO THIS, WE SET ASIDE TH E ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE AFORESAID RS. 86,41,053/- TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE R ELEVANT MATERIALS AND TO MAKE NECESSARY SUBMISSIONS. ALL TH E GROUNDS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WI TH AFORESAID DIRECTIONS AND ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. APPEAL NO. 4801/DEL/2016, A.Y. 2010-11 IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (G) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 44,57,472/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHIC H WAS LIKEWISE CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED AP PELLATE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. PRESENT APPEAL VIDE IT A NO. 5964/DEL.2016 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 011-12. ALSO, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE O F RS.15,68,254/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, W HICH WAS LIKEWISE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN IMPUGNED AP PELLATE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. PRESENT APPEAL VIDE I TA NO. 5410/DEL/2018 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2012-13. THE REASONING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAK ING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND IN 14 ITA NO. 4801, 5964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS THE SAME AS THE REASONIN G FOLLOWED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. MOREOVER, THE RE ASONING FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE AFORE SAID DISALLOWANCES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-1 3 ARE ALSO THE SAME AS THE REASONING FOLLOWED BY HIM FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11. NEITHER SIDE HAS BROUGHT ANY FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES TO OUR ATTENTION TO DRAW ANY DISTINCTION FROM ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS COMPARED WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AN D 2012- 13. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY EITHER SIDE TO DISTINGU ISH THE APPEALS VIDE ITA NO. 5964/DEL/2016 FOR AY 2011-12 AND ITA N O. 5410/DEL/2018 FOR AY 2012-13; FROM ITA NO. 4801/DEL /2016 FOR AY 2010-11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, BOTH SIDES SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN A PPEALS FOR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 VIDE ITA NO. 5964/DEL/2016 AND ITA NO. 5410/DEL/2018 MAY ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ORDER AS PER LAW. IN VIEW OF FORE GOING, AND AS BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED TO THIS, THE ISSUES IN DISPU TE IN APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE 5964/DEL/2016 AND FOR AY 2012-13 VIDE ITA NO. 5410/DEL/2018 ARE ALSO SET ASI DE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AN D 2012-13 BY AFORESAID ITA NO. 5964/DEL/2016 AND ITA NO. 5410 /DEL/2018 RESPECTIVELY ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED AND CONS EQUENTLY APPEALS VIDE ITA NO.5964/DEL/2016 AND ITA NO. 5410/ DEL/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVE LY ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 15 ITA NO. 4801, 5964/D/2016 & 5410/D/2018 (M/S. ENERGY IN FRATECH P. LTD.) (H) IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (ANADEE NATH MIS SHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 23.02.2021 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI