ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC), Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 753/BANG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2058 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV DUTT
• Assessee Lawyers: D S ANIRUDH
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM ITA NO.753(BANG.)/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988-89) ISRO SATELITE CENTRE(ISAC) , AIRPORT ROAD, VIMANAPURA, BANGALORE APPELLANT VS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-19(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-19(1), BANGALORE-560 001. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.S. ANIRUDH REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV DUTT O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM ; THIS APPEAL WAS INITIALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-IV, DATED 29-03-2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 TO 1999-2000 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS; 1. THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS CONTRAR Y TO LAW AND EVIDENCES IN SO FAR AS IT IS HELD THAT PAYMENT TO M/S ARIANESPACE, FRANCE FOR LAUNCH OF SATELLITE INTO GE O-STATIONERY ORBIT IS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES LIABLE TO TDS U /S 195 OF IT ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT IT IS NOT FREE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES SINCE NO TECHNICAL SERV ICES WERE RENDERED TO THE APPELLANT AS HELD BY THIS HONBLE I TAT IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.142 TO 144(B)/2002 DATED 17- 12-2007. ITA NO.785(B)/09 2 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING SAME AS IN IT A NOS.142 TO 144(B)/2002 DATED 17-12-2007, IN MATERIA L PARTICULARS IT OUGHT TO BE HELD THAT THERE IS NO FE E FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES LIABLE TO TDS AND IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THIS HONBLE ITAT BE PLACED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE INTERESTS OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT INIT IALLY COMBINED APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED SEPARATE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.754 TO 763(B)/2008 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1999-2000 SEPARATELY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LEARNE D AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO PRESS APPEAL NO.753(B)/08 VIA-A-V IS 1988-89 ONLY. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF LEARN ED AR AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE ITA NO.753(B)/08 VIS--VIS 1988-89 ONLY. 3. IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. A SIMILAR DELAY WAS THE RE IN ITA NOS.754 TO 763(B)/08 WHICH WAS CONDONED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR TH E REASONS STATED IN NEXT PARA. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LEARN ED DR. THE FACTS BEING SAME, FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN QUESTION. 4. WITH REGARDS TO MERIT LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.754 TO 7639B)/08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1999- 2000, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER; WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF COD PERMISSION THAT HAS BEEN O BTAINED ELATEDLY AND PLACED ON RECORD. ON OUR CAREFUL CONS IDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE W ITH THE ITA NO.785(B)/09 3 SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200-01 TO 2002-03 AS PER THE COPY O F THE ORDER DATED 17-12-2007 PLACED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT PUT FORTH ANY CONTROVERTING MATERIAL AS OTHERWISE C ONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DISPUTING THE FINDING OF T HE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME. THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE ARE SAME AND THE NATURE OF PAYMENT STANDS FULLY EXPLAIN ED, THEREFORE, DOES NOT ATTRACT ANY TAX DEDUCTION AT SO URCE AND COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO DEMAND U/S 201(1). THE A PPEALS FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, STANDS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS COVERED BY THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE LATER YEARS AS RELIED UPON. 5. FACTS BEING SAME, FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO SIMILAR PARTIES AND T HE NATURE OF PAYMENTS STANDS FULLY EXPLAINED, SO THE SAME COULD NOT BE SU BJECTED TO DEMAND U/S 201(1). 6. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE N OVEMBER, 2008. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUINTNAT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 2008 AM * ITA NO.785(B)/09 4 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) 7. GF(DELHI) BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE