2023 (2) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Tax Residency Certificate Validity for Treaty Benefits and Invalidates Re-assessment Notice

Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 1 (1) (2), Delhi

Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 1 (1) (2), ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent-revenue can go behind the tax residency certificate issued by another tax jurisdiction.2. The legality of the re-assessment notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The validity of the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.4. The applicability and sufficiency of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) for claiming treaty benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA.5. The compliance with the Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause under the India-Singapore DTAA.6. The validity of the order disposing of the objections to the re-assessment notice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the respondent-revenue can go behind the tax residency certificate issued by another tax jurisdiction:The court held that the respondent-revenue cannot go behind the TRC issued by the other tax jurisdiction. The TRC is sufficient evidence to claim treaty eligibility, residence status, and legal ownership. The court emphasized that the TRC should be accepted as conclusive evidence, and the tax authorities in India should not question the resident status of the assessee. This principle was reiterated in various CBDT Circulars and upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. The court also highlighted the Government of India's assurances to foreign investors that the TRC would be accepted without further scrutiny.2. The legality of the re-assessment notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The court found that the re-assessment notice issued under Section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The notice was issued merely to verify the nature and genuineness of the transaction, which is not permissible in law. The court held that the reasons for reopening should show a live link between the material before the Assessing Officer and the belief that income has escaped assessment. In this case, the reasons recorded were based on information from a third party without any independent verification, making the re-assessment notice invalid.3. The validity of the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment:The court held that the reasons to believe must be based on reasonable grounds and not mere suspicion. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate any live link between the material and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The court emphasized that the reasons cannot evolve or be supplemented during the course of arguments. The reasons recorded at the time of issuing the notice must be the basis for the validity of the re-assessment proceedings.4. The applicability and sufficiency of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) for claiming treaty benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA:The court reiterated that the TRC is sufficient evidence to claim treaty benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA. The TRC issued by the Inland Revenue Authorities of Singapore (IRAS) confirmed the petitioner's tax residency in Singapore. The court referred to various CBDT Circulars and the Supreme Court's judgments in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Vodafone International Holdings B.V., which upheld the validity and sufficiency of the TRC for claiming treaty benefits.5. The compliance with the Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause under the India-Singapore DTAA:The court held that the petitioner had complied with the LOB clause under the India-Singapore DTAA. The petitioner had incurred the required expenditure in Singapore, as confirmed by its audited financial statements and an independent chartered accountant's certificate. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the satisfaction of the LOB clause at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner was deemed not to be a shell/conduit company and was eligible for the benefits under the DTAA.6. The validity of the order disposing of the objections to the re-assessment notice:The court found that the order disposing of the objections was arbitrary and non-speaking. It did not address the petitioner's detailed submissions and failed to provide any justification for the reopening of the assessment. The court emphasized that the reasons for reopening must be recorded in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by affidavits or additional arguments during the proceedings. The court quashed the impugned order disposing of the objections, as it did not meet the legal requirements for a valid re-assessment.Conclusion:The court concluded that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the present case. The re-assessment proceedings were found to be without jurisdiction, and the impugned notice under Section 148, the reasons recorded for reopening, and the order disposing of the objections were quashed. The court emphasized the sufficiency of the TRC for claiming treaty benefits and the importance of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer in re-assessment proceedings.