TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. Before we spell out the exact nature of default attributed to the assessee, we deem it apposite to recount the facts in brief. The respondent, NHK Japan is a government owned public broadcasting company of Japan having news bureaus in many countries including India. The respondent had deputed expatriate employees from Japan for working in its office in India. The expatriates were receiving salary in India and a portion of salary and allowances in Japan. Under the law in Japan, citizens/nationals of Japan are liable to levy of an annual municipal Citizen Tax also referred to as Inhabitant tax which is charged on account of being an inhabitant of Japan. In case a Ja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee being held to be in default u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A) and housing norm deduction, the matter was decided against the assessee. The CIT (A) decided the appeals for 11 financial years i.e. FY 1988-89 to 1998-99 by way of a common order dated 30th March, 2001. Against the order of CIT (A), 11 appeals were filed by the assessee before the ITAT on the grounds of assessee being in default, housing norm deduction and an additional ground regarding orders for FY 1988-89 to 1994-95 being barred by limitation. 11 appeals were filed by the Revenue before the ITAT on issue of citizen tax deduction. All appeals were decided by a common order dated 10th March, 2006. The appeals of the assessee were allowed and those of the Revenue were dismissed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ividual Inhabitant Tax Act. In the letter of appointment issued, there is a reference to the words. The relevant Clause reads as under: "Tour emoluments shall be subject to deduction of taxes as per applicable laws and the tax liability on host country (India) shall be borne by NHK-JapanBroadcasting Corporation." Analysing the said Clause one finds that the emoluments paid by the assessee was subject to deduction of tax as per applicable laws. Therefore, in our view, Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have examined the provisions of Citizens Individual Inhabitant Tax Act which is a Japanese law and it ought to have analysed the provisions of that law, particularly, when it was required to decide the question as to nature of the levy being an o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers dated 16th March, 2009. The Counsel for the assessee filed the copy of the aforesaid Act alongwith its English translation but did not take the responsibility with respect to the authenticity of its English translation. In such a situation, the order dated 9th December, 2009 was passed by the Tribunal directing the Departmental Representative of the Revenue to place on record the copies of the provisions translated into English. Even after seeking adjournments, the Revenue failed to file the translated copy of the relevant provisions of the said Act. This posed a dilemma in the minds of the Tribunal. On the one hand, there was a direction given by the Supreme Court to decide the issue with reference to the provisions of the Citizens Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6th March, 2009 inasmuch as, the Tribunal is bound to carry out such directions. However, if the second ground given by the Tribunal has merit, there may not be any fault with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, we proceed to examine the veracity of the second ground taken by the Tribunal. 5. As pointed out above, there were two batches of appeals before the Supreme Court. 1st batch was concerned with the Citizens Tax Act in which directions dated 16th March, 2009 were passed by the Supreme Court, as noted above. The 2nd batch of appeals was concerned with the issue of limitation. As noted above, the orders in respect of financial year 1988-89 to 1994-95 were held to be invalid on the ground of limitation by the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment as a component of the total salary paid to an expatriate working in India? This controversy came to an end vide judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009) 312 ITR 2235. The question on limitation has become academic in these cases because, even assuming that the Department is right on the issue of limitation still the question would arise whether on such debatable points, the assessee (s) could be declared as assessee9s) in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, we are informed that the assessee have paid the differential tax. They have paid the interest and they further undertake not to claim refund for the ....