2004 (5) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ears 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 for which separate appeals were filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and surprisingly, only one composite appeal is preferred here. The Revenue ought to have preferred separate appeals. The office (Registry) is directed to treat this matter for the financial year 1989-90 and for the other financial years, to give separate numbers for each appeal. The Revenue is directed to pay the amount of court fees which shall be deposited within a period of 15 days from today. With a view to see that there is no delay, we are disposing of the matter by this common judgment. The assessee, a non-resident company, incorporated in Japan having its head office in Tokyo, is before the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, against which the assessee preferred appeals and the Tribunal, on appreciation of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the penalty was not required to be levied as there was reasonable cause for the non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal held as under: "In the present case, admittedly, the Department has neither treated the assessee-company in default under section 201(1) nor it levied any penalty for non-deduction and payment of tax under the proviso to section 201(1) read with section 221 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee-company also paid interest suo motu as required under section 201 (1A) for the delayed payment. It is therefore inferred that there existed good and sufficient reasons for non-deduction of tax a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, arrived at a conclusion, which is as under: "We also find that the expatriate employees deputed to India and working on project or in liaison office were liable to tax for the salary paid to them. We note that the Revenue in the individual cases of expatriate employees had neither made any investigation about the salary, if any, paid to them in Japan nor the question of subjecting the salary paid to them in Japan was considered and decided on merits for taxation in India in their individual cases and the position being so the general managers acting as disbursing officers in both offices neither had details about the salary paid to each of the expatriate employees in Japan nor were aware about its taxability in India and their responsi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... but nothing could be filed. According to learned counsel for the assessee-company, since the legal opinion was given by their Internal Legal Cell and it was not obtained from any outside expert, there could be no independent evidence in support of such claim made as insisted by the lower authorities. Based on such legal opinion, the assessee-company had a bona fide belief that retention/continuation pay paid in Japan to expatriate employees deputed to India is not taxable in India and accordingly the provisions of Chapter XVII-B are not applicable. According to learned counsel for the assessee, this constituted a reasonable cause and the cause so shown should have been objectively considered on merits by the lower authorities in the light ....