Foreign BVI company held 'eligible assessee' under s.144C(15)(b); AO's failure to issue draft under s.144C(1) vitiates final orders

ITAT Delhi (AT) held that the assessee, a foreign company incorporated in the BVI, is an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b) and the AO was obliged to follow the draft-assessment procedure under s.144C(1). Because the AO issued final assessment orders without issuing a draft as mandated, those final orders were vitiated. The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s setting aside of the final orders and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a foreign company falling within the definition of "eligible assessee" under section 144C(15)(b) is entitled to be served with a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) before the Assessing Officer passes a final assessment order proposing a variation prejudicial to the assessee.

2. Whether non-compliance with section 144C(1) by omitting to forward a draft assessment order vitiates the final assessment order and attendant demand/penalty proceedings.

3. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the foreign assessee was a resident of India under section 6(3)(ii) (i.e., that control and management of the company was situated wholly in India) on the basis of seized documents, emails and statements.

4. Whether initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153C (and consequent assessments under section 147/144) was sustainable where draft assessment order under section 144C(1) was not issued and whether jurisdiction under section 153C was properly invoked.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Applicability of section 144C(1) to foreign companies (eligible assessee)

Legal framework: Section 144C(1) requires the AO, "in the first instance", to forward a draft of the proposed order to an "eligible assessee" where the AO proposes, on or after 1 October 2009, any variation prejudicial to the assessee. Section 144C(15)(b) includes "any foreign company" in the definition of "eligible assessee."

Precedent treatment: Several High Court and Tribunal decisions, including the jurisdictional High Court, have held that a foreign company is an eligible assessee and that non-compliance with section 144C(1) is fatal to the final order (citing decisions such as Zuari Cement, Vijay Television, ESPN Star Sports, and subsequent Tribunal decisions applying that ratio).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the statutory text and authoritative precedents and concluded that a foreign company clearly falls within the statutory "eligible assessee" class; consequently the AO was statutorily obliged to first issue a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) before passing any final order varying returned income to the assessee's prejudice.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - section 144C(1) applies mandatorily to foreign companies and requires issuance of a draft order prior to final assessment when a prejudicial variation is proposed.

Conclusions: Section 144C(1) applied; the AO was required to pass a draft order to the foreign assessee before finalizing any assessment adverse to it.

Issue 2 - Effect of non-compliance with section 144C(1)

Legal framework: The mandatory phrasing of section 144C(1) and the DRP mechanism underpin a statutorily mandated pre-finalization procedure designed to afford eligible assessees an opportunity to have proposed variations considered by the DRP.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on a consistent line of authorities (including High Court and Tribunal decisions) holding that failure to issue the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) renders the final assessment order without jurisdiction, null and void, and unenforceable; attempts to cure the defect by subsequent actions or corrigenda have been rejected.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given the mandatory statutory requirement and the settled jurisprudence, the Court held that non-compliance is not a curable procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect; the draft order is a pre-condition to a valid final order where the assessee is "eligible."

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - non-issuance of the draft assessment order in relation to an eligible assessee vitiates the final assessment order and related demand/penalty proceedings.

Conclusions: The final assessment orders passed without issuing draft assessment orders under section 144C(1) were vitiated and liable to be set aside.

Issue 3 - Resident status under section 6(3)(ii): whether control and management was situated in India

Legal framework: Section 6(3)(ii) attributes Indian residency to certain foreign companies if control and management of the company is situated wholly in India.

Precedent treatment: The Court reviewed factual findings and decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and co-ordinate benches which considered documentary evidence, international transaction records and statements seized during search in determining residency.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)'s conclusion that the board of directors (and thereby control and management) were not residents of India and that material on record (including filings with foreign tax authorities and international transaction records) supported foreign residency. The Court noted that the AO's reliance on seized documents and witness statements did not compellingly establish that ultimate control and management lay wholly in India.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - on the facts before the Court, the assessee was a non-resident; the conclusion that control and management were not wholly situated in India was a binding factual finding upheld by the Tribunal. Obiter - general standards for assessing control and management were discussed in light of facts and precedents.

Conclusions: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the finding of non-residence under section 6(3)(ii); the AO's contrary conclusion was not sustained.

Issue 4 - Validity of invoking section 153C / initiation of proceedings where section 144C(1) procedure was not followed

Legal framework: Section 153C permits assessment of persons in respect of income found during search of another person; however, where the assessee is an "eligible assessee" under section 144C(15)(b), the interposed requirement of section 144C(1) applies to any prejudicial variation proposed.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal and High Court authorities have treated non-compliance with section 144C(1) as invalidating subsequent assessment actions even when initiated under section 153C following search and seizure.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that invocation of assessment jurisdiction under section 153C did not relieve the AO from complying with the mandatory draft-order obligation under section 144C(1). Consequently, assessments completed under section 153C/147/144 without issuing the draft order were vitiated. The Tribunal also observed failures in satisfaction required to invoke section 153C in the record.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - mandatory compliance with section 144C(1) is required even in assessments arising from search/seizure and notices under section 153C; failure to comply renders such assessments unsustainable.

Conclusions: The invocation of jurisdiction and final orders under sections 153C/147/144 were invalid insofar as the AO failed to issue the statutorily mandated draft orders under section 144C(1); hence the assessments were set aside.

Remedial outcome and disposition

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) orders setting aside the final assessment orders for the assessment years under consideration on the ground of non-compliance with section 144C(1). Cross-objections filed by the assessee became infructuous and were dismissed accordingly.

---