TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as 'the Act') in respect of commission payment to overseas agent. 3. Appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3770/Del/2024 is against the order of CIT(A) dated 22.07.2024 passed u/s. 154 r.w.s 250 of the Act. The assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) on following grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred Order dated 22.07.2024, allegly rectifying order u/s 250 dated 26.04.2024, when appeal against the original order had already been filled vide form 36 dated 30.05.2024. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in making alterations in order dated. 26.04.2024, without notice to the assessee and having become "functus offico". 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in observing that rectification of order dated 26.04.2024 on account of omission of certain lines in para 7.3 thereof, while in rectified order substantial omission from original order has also been made." 4. The assessee is in second round of litigation before the Tribunal for AY 2013- 14. In the first round, the Tribunal in assessee's appeal in ITA No.5084/Del/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India. The assessee has been consistently following this business practice, since 2011. 5.1 During scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee explained its business model and modus operandi of its overseas business transactions. It was explained that services of Belinda Sandell an agent were utilized for soliciting customers for assessee's overseas business and to coordinate payments. It was also explained that Belinda Sandell carried her business activities outside India. Since, the conditions set out u/s. 9 of the Act are not satisfied, the payments made by the assessee to the overseas agent are not liable to be taxed in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected assessee's submissions merely on the basis of some email communications between the assessee and Belinda Sandell. The AO erred in holding that Belinda Sandell is purely rendering technical services, hence, the payments made to her by the assessee are in the nature of Fee for Consultancy Services within the meaning of section 9(1) (vii)(b) of the Act, hence, are subject to TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. 5.2 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any technical information or was any consultancy services. 6. Per contra, Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, representing the Department submits that it is for the first time before the Tribunal that the assessee has stated that there is no agreement. The assessee never raised such a plea either before the AO or before the CIT(A), or even before the Tribunal in the first round. He contended that the submissions of the assessee have been ambiguous regarding nonexistence of an agreement. He further submitted that there is no "make available" clause in the India-Sweden treaty; hence, the consultancy fee paid by the assessee to the foreign agent is liable to be taxed in India, and the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act. In the event of non-deduction of tax at source, the amount paid by the assessee is liable to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR thus prayed for upholding the addition and dismissing appeal of the assessee. 6.1 The ld. DR further stated that in so far as the grievance of the assessee in ITA No.3770/Del/2024 regarding ex-parte proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act, he contended that the CIT(A) has not made any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original order perse does not amount to enhancing an assessment or increasing liability of the assessee. No new addition has been made by the CIT(A) u/s. 154 of the Act. The AO or the CIT(A) can rectify a mistake apparent on record and amend the order on its own motion. Notice to assessee is must where an amendment has the effect of enhancing the assessment or otherwise increasing tax liability of the assessee. In the instant case, we see no violation of principles of nature justice or violation of provisions of section 154 of the Act. 8.1. In so far as objection of the assessee that the order u/s. 250 of the Act was rectified by the CIT(A) after filing of appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, we find no force in the said submissions. The CIT(A) has passed rectified order u/s. 250 r.w.s 154 of the Act before the appeal of assessee was heard. There is no impediment in rectifying a mistake u/s. 154 of the Act by the lower authorities before the appeal is taken up for final hearing for adjudication by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, objection of the assessee against rectification of mistake u/s. 154 of the Act by the CIT(A) is misplaced, hence, the same is rejected. 9.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey relate to the commission invoices by Blenda Sandell against the last shipment of consignment by the assessee or they are in respect of seeking details for execution of orders for various articles. The e-mails that have been reproduced in the assessment order no where reveals that there in respect of rendering consultancy service by the Blenda Sandell to the assessee. In fact, a close perusal of the mails reveals that Blenda Sandell has answered the queries raised by the assessee with regard to the orders of the garments viz. measurement, print, texture, dye, pottery program, etc. Exchange of such emails does not lead to any conclusion that the services rendered by Blenda Sandell are in the nature of technical services or consultancy services, payments for which can be characterized as FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 12. The payments made by the assessee to Blenda Sandell appears to be in the nature of commission for procuring orders and for follow up of payments against the invoices raised by the assessee. Since, the services are rendered by Blenda Sandell outside India, the payments for the same are not taxable in India. Hence, we are of considered view that the assessee had....