Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

(i) The assessee, a telecom operator, made provision for site restoration expenses, however, TDS was not made. The provision was made for dismantling the towers and restoration of site to its original position after termination of the lease period. The lease period is normally 20 years and above. The assessee by placing reliance on the Accounting Standard – 29 claims that a provision would be made in respect of an obligation. In other words, the assessee had an obligation to incur the expenditure after termination of the lease period. The Revenue contended that due to misconception and ignorance of law and with an intention to circumvent the statutory provisions, the assessee made the provision. The fact remains that the payment was not made to anyone and it is not credited to the account of any party or individual. The account does not disclose the person to whom the amount is to be paid. The contractor who is supposed to be engaged for dismantling the tower and restore the site in its original position is not identified. As contended by the assessee, the assessee by itself engaging its own labourers may dismantle the towers and restore the site to its original position. In such a case, the question of deducting tax at source does not arise. The assessee has to pay only the salary to the respective employees. Suppose the work is entrusted to a contractor, then definitely the assessee has to deduct tax. In this case, the contractor would be identified after the expiry of lease period. Therefore, even if the assessee deducts tax, it cannot be paid to the credit of any individual. The assessee has to issue Form 16A prescribed under Rule 31(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the tax deducted at source. The assessee has to necessarily give the details of name and address of deductee, the PAN of deductee and amount or credited. In this case, the assessee could not identify the name and address of deductee and and his PAN. The assessee also may not be in a position to quantify the amount required for incurring the expenditure for dismantling and restoration of site to its original position. In those circumstances, the provision which requires deduction of tax at source fails. Hence, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-deduction of tax at source while making a provision.

(ii) As regards the year-end provisions, the assessee made arrangement with other service provides for providing value added services. There may be justification with regard to the expenditure for availing the services of identification and verification for the last month of financial year, since the assessee may not have the exact details on verification done by the concerned persons and the amount required to be paid. However, in respect of the downloads and value added service, etc. the entire details may be available in the system. Therefore, wherever the particulars and details available and amount payable could be quantified, the assessee has to necessarily deduct tax. In respect of value added services like daily horoscopes, astrology, customer acquisition forms are all from specific service providers and these value added services are monitored by system. Therefore, even on the last day of financial year, the assessee could very well ascertain the actual quantification of the amount payable and the identity of the payee to whom the amount has to be paid. To that extent, the contention of the assessee that the payee may not be identified may not be justified. The Assessing Officer has to examine whether the payment to the party/payee is identifiable on the last day of financial year and whether the quantum payable by the assessee is also quantified on the last date of financial year. In case, the Assessing Officer finds that the payee could not be identified on the last day of financial year and the amount payable also could not be ascertained, the assessee may not require to deduct tax in respect of that provision. However, in case the payee is identified and quantum is also ascertainable on the last day of the financial year, the assessee has to necessarily deduct tax at source.

(iii) As regards roaming charges, the Supreme Court held in CIT v. Bharti Cellular Limited (330 ITR 239) that whenever there was a human intervention, it has to be considered as technical service. In the light of the above judgment of the Apex Court, the Department obtained an expert opinion from the Sub-Divisional Engineer of BSNL. The Sub-Divisional Engineer clarified that human intervention is required for establishing the physical connectivity between two operators for doing necessary system configurations. After necessary configuration for providing roaming services, human intervention is not required. Once human intervention is not required, as found by the Apex Court, the service provided by the other service provider cannot be considered to be a technical service. It is common knowledge that when one of the subscribers in the assessee’s circle travels to the jurisdiction of another circle, the call gets connected automatically without any human intervention. It is due to configuration of software system in the respective service provider’s place. The subscriber can make and receive calls, access and receive data and other service without any human intervention. Like any other machinery, whenever the system breakdown, to set right the same, human intervention is required. However, for connecting roaming call, no human intervention is required except initial configuration in system. Human intervention is necessary for routine maintenance of the system and machinery. However, no human intervention is required for connecting the roaming calls. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in Bharti Cellular Limited (supra), the roaming connections are provided without any human intervention and therefore, no technical service is availed by the assessee. Therefore, TDS is not required to be made in respect of roaming charges paid to the other service providers.