IBM INDIA (P) LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER an assessee has called in question the legality and validity of the order dt. 25.2.2013 Annexure -F of the Ist respondent on the premise of being without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and to declare the initiation of proceeding under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in respect of returns for the financial year 2009 -10; 2010 - 11 and 2011 -12 insofar as tax deducted at source from payments made to non -residents, as without jurisdiction, while tax deducted at source from payments made to residents for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.12.2009 as barred by limitation.

(2.) PETITIONER engaged in the business of hardware and software is said to have made payments, to both residents and non - residents during the financial year 2009 -10 to 2011 -12 and having deducted tax at source under the provisions of Chapter - XVII -B of the Income tax Act, 1961, for short Act;' credited it to the Central Government by filing quarterly statement of tax deduction in terms of Section 200 of the Act. According to the petitioner few expenses which did not qualify for tax deduction at source,, for short TDS, since being a mere provision, without bills from the vendors, or where it could not deduct tax at the time of payment, petitioner made disallowances of the said sums and added it to the total income subsequently, under Section 40(a) (i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act and claimed deduction from payment in the subsequent year after due payment of TDS, to the credit of the Central Government, which included payments made to residents and non - residents in respect of which tax was required to be deducted under Section 195 of the Act. Petitioner asserts that quarterly statements in that regard when filed were duly processed and intimation issued under Section 200 -A of the Act.

(3.) IT is the allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent without considering the said request, issued another notice dt. 15.02.2013 Annexure -D requiring the petitioner to furnish the details sought for, as also details of provision/disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ai) and the reversal of the entries after making payment of the tax deducted at source. Petitioner further asserts that the information sought for is disallowance in relation to payments made outside India or to non -residents on which tax is to be deducted at source in respect of which the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction, since specifically conferred upon the Director of Income tax (International Taxation) which fact was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by letter dt. 22.2.2013 Annexure -E.