{"id":1726,"date":"2010-06-07T17:08:10","date_gmt":"2010-06-07T11:38:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=1726"},"modified":"2010-06-07T17:08:10","modified_gmt":"2010-06-07T11:38:10","slug":"hindalco-industries-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-despite-tds-us-195-payer-is-liable-as-agent-us-163-however-if-payee-is-assessed-payer-cannot-be-assessed-as-representative-assessee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/hindalco-industries-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-despite-tds-us-195-payer-is-liable-as-agent-us-163-however-if-payee-is-assessed-payer-cannot-be-assessed-as-representative-assessee\/","title":{"rendered":"Hindalco Industries vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=205\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=205&varname2=Hindalco_Industries_s_163_agent.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (Hindalco_Industries_s_163_agent.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong> Despite TDS u\/s 195, payer is liable as \u201cagent\u201d u\/s 163. However, if payee is assessed, payer cannot be assessed as &#8220;representative assessee&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee purchased shares of an Indian company from Alcan Inc, Canada. Alcan filed an application u\/s 197(1) for issue of a TDS certificate on the basis that the capital gains was Rs. 317.71 crores and tax at 10% was chargeable. <strong>The AO issued a certificate directing the assessee to withhold Rs. 40 crores<\/strong> on a provisional basis subject to regular assessment. The assessee complied with the same. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings against Alcan, the AO issued an <strong>order u\/s 163 treating the assessee as Agent of Alcan<\/strong> in respect of the capital gains. Thereafter, on 15.3.2004, the AO passed an <strong>order assessing the capital gains in the hands of the assessee as agent<\/strong> of Alcan in which the rate of tax was taken at 20%. On 16.3.2004, an <strong>assessment order was passed in the case of Alcan itself<\/strong> assessing the capital gains in its hands at the rate of 20%. Alcan\u2019s appeal was allowed by the Tribunal (<strong>Alcan Inc vs. DDIT<\/strong> 110 ITD 15 (Mum)) and the rate of tax was held to be 10%. The assessee filed an appeal on the point that (a) as it had deducted tax u\/s 195, it could not be treated as an \u201cagent\u201d u\/s 163; (b) As more than 2 years had passed after the remittance, the assessee could not be treated as an \u201cagent\u201d as it was not in the position to exercise its rights u\/s 162(1) and retain funds and (c) as the department had assessed Alcan, the assessee could not be assessed as representative assessee. HELD: <\/p>\n<p>(a) The contention that the assessee having duly deducted tax u\/s 195 cannot be treated as an Agent of Alcan u\/s 163 is not acceptable because s. 163 is merely intended to ensure that a person can be regarded as a representative assessee if certain conditions are fulfilled. The s. 163 order does not fasten liability on the representative assessee. Therefore, <strong><em>the fact that the Agent has deducted tax u\/s 195 is not a bar to treat him as an Agent u\/s 163<\/em><\/strong>;<\/p>\n<p>(b) The contention that there has been a delay in initiating proceedings u\/s 163 which has resulted in prejudice to the Agent is also not acceptable as <strong><em>the law does not contemplate any time limit for initiating proceedings u\/s 163<\/em><\/strong>. The proceedings for assessing income of the principal were also not barred by time;<\/p>\n<p>(c) However, while the <strong>department has the option<\/strong> u\/s 166 to assess either the non-resident principal or the representative assessee, <strong>once the choice is made and the income is brought to tax in the hands of the principal, the same income cannot be again assessed in the hands of a representative assessee<\/strong> (<strong>Saipem UK<\/strong> 298 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum) followed). Consequently, the assessment order on the assessee had to be annulled. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee Also: <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/j-m-baxi-vs-ddit-itat-mumbai-special-bench\">J. M. Baxi vs. DDIT<\/a><\/strong> 117 ITD 131 (SB)(Mum) (<em>Time Limit of s. 149 (3) not applicable to voluntary agents<\/em>)\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The <strong>department has the option<\/strong> u\/s 166 to assess either the non-resident principal or the representative assessee. <strong>Once the choice is made and the income is brought to tax in the hands of the principal, the same income cannot be again assessed u\/s 163 in the hands of a representative assessee<\/strong> (<strong>Saipem UK<\/strong> 298 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum) followed). Consequently, the assessment order on the agent had to be annulled<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/hindalco-industries-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-despite-tds-us-195-payer-is-liable-as-agent-us-163-however-if-payee-is-assessed-payer-cannot-be-assessed-as-representative-assessee\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}