Tribunal quashes order against assessee, citing time-barred action and double taxation concerns

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the order treating the assessee as an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, considering specific excluded periods. The Tribunal held that the action was time-barred, citing a five-year delay in issuing the notice. It was determined that double taxation and interest duplication issues arose, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee. The order was pronounced on 14th July 2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of treating the assessee as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Time limit for initiating action under Section 201(1) and 201(1A).
4. Applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA.
5. Double taxation and interest duplication issues.
6. Applicability of Section 50C of the Act in determining tax liability under Section 195.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 296 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition, and the Tribunal, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in SMW(A) No.3 of 2020, excluded the period between 15/3/2020 and 28/02/2022 for calculating the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the case was adjudicated on its merits.

2. Validity of Treating the Assessee as an Assessee in Default:
The assessee purchased an immovable property from a non-resident and a resident but failed to deduct tax at source on payments made to the non-resident, as required under Section 195 of the Act. The AO treated the assessee as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and levied interest under Section 201(1A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, but the assessee contested the decision further.

3. Time Limit for Initiating Action under Section 201(1) and 201(1A):
The Tribunal noted that there is no specific time limit provided under the Act for treating an assessee as in default concerning payments made to non-residents. However, it referred to judicial precedents, including decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, which generally considered a four-year period as a reasonable time limit for initiating action under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The Tribunal concluded that since the AO issued the notice after five years, the action was barred by limitation.

4. Applicability of DTAA between India and the USA:
The assessee argued that under Article 26 of the DTAA between India and the USA, payments made to a national of the USA should not be subject to TDS on the transaction of purchasing a capital asset. However, this ground was withdrawn by the assessee during the proceedings.

5. Double Taxation and Interest Duplication Issues:
The Tribunal observed that the non-resident seller had already filed her income tax returns and paid the capital gains tax. Therefore, taxing the assessee again for non-deduction of TDS would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible under law. The Tribunal also noted that levying interest under Section 201(1A) when the tax was already determined in the hands of the payee would result in duplication of interest, which is not allowed.

6. Applicability of Section 50C of the Act:
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the provisions of Section 50C, which deal with the valuation of capital assets for the purpose of calculating capital gains, do not apply to the deduction of tax under Section 195. The Tribunal cited previous decisions supporting this view.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and held that treating the assessee as an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Act was not valid in law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 14th July 2022.

---