Bombay High Court
Cooperative Robobank Ua vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Mumbai ... on 7 July, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Abhay Ahuja
1 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1028 OF 2021
Cooperative Rabobank U A,
20th Floor, Tower A,
Peninsula Business Park,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West),
Mumbai - 400 013. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT),
Mumbai-2, having his offce at
17th Floor, Air India Building,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.
2. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Department of Finance,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,
North Block, New Delhi-110. ... Respondents
-------
Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Atul Jasani,
Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms.S.V. Bharucha, Advocate for Respondents.
-------
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24TH JUNE, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 7TH JULY, 2021.
Mugdha 1 of 18
2 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
JUDGMENT : (PER ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
1. By this Petition fled under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, Petitioner is challenging the validity of
Form-3, dated 28th January, 2021 and 26th March, 2021 issued
under Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020
(the "DTVSV Act") by the Designated Authority for Assessment
Year 2002-2003.
2. Petitioner is a bank established in the Netherlands and it
is a part of the Rabobank Group worldwide. It is submitted that
Petitioner is a regular assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961
(the "IT Act").
3. Petitioner had fled a Return of Income on 31 st March,
2003 declaring nil income. The Assessment Order was passed on
28th March, 2005 assessing business profts attributable to
permanent establishment (PE) at Rs.31,25,060/-. Being aggrieved
by the said order, an appeal was fled before the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] on 28th April, 2005. The CIT(A),
by its order dated 15th May, 2006 deleted the addition, holding that
Mugdha 2 of 18
3 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
Petitioner does not have a PE in India. Thereafter, the assessing
offcer fled Appeal before the Tribunal on 11th August, 2006. The
Tribunal, by its order dated 1 st April, 2015, restored the issue to the
fle of the assessing offcer. Against the said order, Petitioner fled an
Appeal before this Court on 23rd September, 2015 under Section
260A of the IT Act. Petitioner also fled Miscellaneous Application
before the Tribunal, which came to be rejected by an order dated
21st August, 2018. Thereafter, on 29th August, 2018, this Court in
Income Tax Appeal No.1198 of 2015 with Income Tax Appeal
No.260 of 2016 with Income Tax Appeal No.264 of 2016 passed an
order setting aside both the orders of the Tribunal, viz., the order
dated 1st April, 2015 restoring the issue to the fle of the assessing
offcer as well as the order dated 21 st August, 2018 dismissing the
Miscellaneous Application fled by Petitioner. The High Court
directed the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. The following
paragraphs of the order of this Court are relevant and are quoted as
under :-
"26 In the backdrop of all this, and further facts
noted, a cryptic order has been passed by the
Tribunal. In fact, in paragraph 5 of the order under
challenge in reference to the Income Tax Appeal No.
4632/MUM/2006 for Assessment Year 2002-2003,
Mugdha 3 of 18
4 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
the Tribunal says that the Indian company had made
payment to the Assessee for providing the advisory
services to it and under the Head "Guarantee
Commission" and that the Indian company was
paying the Assesee more than 30% of its income. That
the basic issues are, as to whether the Assesee had
permanent establishment in India or not and as to
whether the services rendered by the Indian
company could be treated as the activities carried out
by the Assessee. Yet, it says that there is nothing on
record to prove that the provisions of Article 5(1) of
the Agreement are applicable. That stipulates that
the permanent establishment for the purpose of
convention meant a fxed business through which the
business of the enterprise was wholly or partly
carried on. The conclusion is that the Assessee was
not having fxed place of business in India. Hence, the
First Appellate Authority rightly held that the
provisions of Article 5 (1) were inapplicable. It is in
these circumstances we are surprised that the
Tribunal still deems it ft and proper to remand the
case. If there was indeed no material on record, then,
the above conclusion was impossible to be reached.
27 Be that as it may, we do not wish to express
any opinion on the rival contentions for it may
prejudice both sides. In fact, resorting to such
Mugdha 4 of 18
5 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
shortcuts, results in wastage of precious judicial time
of the Tribunal as also Higher courts and delaying the
collection and recovery of Revenue, if any. It only
enables the parties to postpone the inevitable. It also
results in uncertainty and chaos. Judicial decisions
have to be consistent and all the more there should be
no confusion. There ought to be some predictability
and when given facts and circumstances give rise to
certain legal principles which parties assert are
applicable, then, as a last fact fnding authority, the
Tribunal could have summoned all records and
thereafter should have arrived at a categorical
conclusion whether the First Appellate Authority was
right or the Assessing Offcer. This having admittedly
not been done, we are of the frm opinion that the
Tribunal failed to act as a last fact fnding authority. It
failed to discharge its duty and function expected of it
by the law. We have no hesitation, therefore, in
answering question nos.1 and 2 as reproduced above
in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
28 Having thus answered these substantial
questions of law, we set aside the order of the
Tribunal. We cause no prejudice to the parties but
balance their rights and equities. We restore the
Revenue's Appeal to the fle of the Tribunal for a
decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
Mugdha 5 of 18
6 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
29 Needless to clarify therefore, that the initial
order dated 1st April, 2015 and the order on the
Miscellaneous Applications for rectifcation are
quashed and set aside There shall be no order as to
costs.
30 All the three Appeals are disposed of
accordingly."
4. With the enactment of the DTVSV Act on 17 th March,
2020, Petitioner made declaration in Form-1 along with
Undertaking in Form-2 according to the provisions of the DTVSV
Act and the Rules thereunder indicating that an Appeal
No.4632/MUM/2006 was pending in the Tribunal, which was fled
by the Department and there was no application pending on behalf
of Petitioner. In the said declaration, Petitioner had indicated an
amount payable under the DTVSV Act as Rs.7,50,014/-, which was
50% of the disputed tax. Thereafter, on 28 th January, 2021, Form-3
was issued by the Designated Authority indicating the amount
payable as Rs.15,00,029/-, which was 100% of the tax arrears,
whereas the amount payable indicated by the tax payer was
Rs.7,50,014/-. The said Form also refers to the same Appeal
Mugdha 6 of 18
7 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
Reference No.4632/MUM/2006 as was contained in Form-1. Even,
the corresponding column pertaining to Schedule number refers to
the pendency of Appeal of the Department before Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (the "ITAT") as on 31st January, 2020.
5. Thereafter, on 19th March, 2021, Petitioner fled
rectifcation application before the Designated Authority explaining
as to how the Appeal, that was pending before the ITAT, was the
Revenue's Appeal and not Petitioner's Appeal. Once again on 26 th
March, 2021, a revised Form-3 was received determining the
amount payable at 100% of the tax arrears, instead of 50% as
claimed by Petitioner.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, Petitioner is before us for
the following reliefs :-
"a. to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the
nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of
the Petitioner's case and after examining the
legality and validity thereof, quash and set aside
the Impugned Forms No.3 dated 28th January
Mugdha 7 of 18
8 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
2021 (Exhibit "J") and 26th March 2021
(Exhibit "L") issued by Respondent No.1 for the
assessment year 2002-03;
b. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, ordering and directing
Respondent No.1 to forthwith withdraw and
cancel the Impugned Forms No.3 dated 28th
January 2021 (Exhibit "J") and 26 th March
2021 (Exhibit "L") issued by Respondent No.1
for the assessment year 2002-03 and further
ordering and directing Respondent No.1 to issue
Form No.3 treating the Petitioner as the
Respondent and consequently determining the
amount payable under the VSV Act at 50% of
the tax arrears;"
7. Respondent-Revenue has fled its affdavit in reply dated
14th June, 2021. It is submitted on behalf of Revenue that Revenue
had fled an Appeal before the ITAT and ITAT directed restoration of
the issue back to the assessing offcer for fresh adjudication and
that the said decision of the ITAT was accepted by the Revenue. He
submits that the assessee thereafter fled an Appeal before the
Mugdha 8 of 18
9 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
Bombay High Court against the said order of the ITAT. The Bombay
High Court has restored the matter to the ITAT for fresh
consideration. He submits that ITA No.4632/MUM/2006 has been
restored on the assessee's Appeal and, therefore, the dispute
pending before the ITAT is assessee's Appeal and not of the
Revenue; the Appeal currently in adjudication being assessee's
Appeal, it justifes levy of 100% tax as per the DTVSV Act and not
50% of the disputed tax.
8. We have heard Shri Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel,
on behalf of Petitioner and Ms. Bharucha, learned Counsel for
Respondents and with their able assistance, we have perused the
papers and proceedings in the matter.
9. Petitioner has fled Form-1 stating that it is eligible for
payment of 50% of disputed tax as according to Petitioner the
pending appeal is Revenue Appeal, whereas department has treated
the same as dispute due to Assessee Appeal, requiring Petitioner to
pay 100% of disputed tax. There being no other dispute, the issue at
hand is whether the Appeal pending before the ITAT is a Revenue
Appeal or an Assessee Appeal. Before answering this question, it
Mugdha 9 of 18
10 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
would be apposite to refer to Section 3 of the DTVSV Act to
appreciate the cause of this conundrum. Section 3 of the DTVSV Act
is quoted as under :-
"3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, where
a declarant fles under the provisions of this Act on
or before the last date, a declaration to the
designated authority in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 in respect of tax arrear,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Income-tax Act or any other law for the time being
in force, the amount payable by the declarant under
this Act shall be as under, namely:--
Sl. Nature of tax arrear. Amount Amount payable
No. payable under this Act on
under this Act or after the 1st day
on of April, 2020
or before the but on or before
31st day of the last date.
March, 2020.
(a) where the tax arrear amount of the the aggregate of
is the aggregate disputed tax. the amount of
amount of disputed disputed tax and
tax, interest ten per cent. of
chargeable or charged disputed tax:
on such disputed tax
and penalty leviable Provided that
or levied on such where the ten per
disputed tax. cent. of disputed
tax exceeds the
aggregate
amount of
interest
chargeable or
Mugdha 10 of 18
11 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
charged on such
disputed tax and
penalty leviable
or levied on such
disputed tax, the
excess shall be
ignored for the
purpose of
computation of
amount payable
under this Act.
(b) where the tax arrear the aggregate the aggregate of
includes the tax, of the amount the amount of
interest or penalty of disputed dispute tax and
determined in any tax and thirty-fve per
assessment on the twenty-fve cent. of dispute
basis of search under per cent. of tax:
section 132 or the disputed
section 132A of the tax: provided provided that
Income-tax Act. that where the where the thirty-
twenty-fve fve per cent. of
per cent. of dispute tax
disputed tax exceeds the
exceeds the aggregate
aggregate amount of
amount of interest
interest chargeable or
chargeable or charged on such
charged on disputed tax and
such disputed penalty leviable
tax and or levied on such
penalty dispute tax, the
leviable or excess shall be
levied on such ignored for the
Mugdha 11 of 18
12 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
disputed tax, purpose of
the excess computation of
shall be amount payable.
ignored for the
purpose of
computation
of amount
payable under
this Act.
(C) where the tax arrear twenty-fve thirty per cent. of
relates to disputed per cent. of disputed
interest or disputed disputed interested or
penalty or disputed interest or disputed penalty
fee. disputed or disputed fee:
penalty or
disputed fee.
Provided that in a case where an appeal or
writ petition or special leave petition is fled by the
income-tax authority on any issue before the
appellate forum, the amount payable shall be one-
half of the amount in the Table above calculated on
such issue, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided further that in a case where an
appeal is fled before the Commissioner (Appeals) or
objections is fled before the Dispute Resolution
Panel by the appellant on any issue on which he has
already got a decision in his favour from the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal (where the decision on such
issue is not reversed by the High Court or the
Supreme Court) or the High Court (where the
decision on such issue is not reversed by the
Supreme Court), the amount payable shall be one-
Mugdha 12 of 18
13 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
half of the amount in the Table above calculated on
such issue, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that in a case where an
appeal is fled by the appellant on any issue before
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on which he has
already got a decision in his favour from the High
Court (where the decision on such issue is not
reversed by the Supreme Court), the amount
payable shall be one-half of the amount in the Table
above calculated on such issue, in such manner as
may be prescribed."
10. Plain reading of the table in the above Section of the
DTVSV Act suggests that in the case of an eligible Appellant, if it is a
non search case, then the amount, that is payable would be 100% of
the disputed tax, if it is a search case, then it would be 125% of the
disputed tax. However, in a case where the Appeal is fled by the
Income Tax authority, the amount payable shall be one-half of the
amount calculated. The question is whether Petitioner is eligible for
payment of 50% of disputed tax or 100%.
11. In this case, assessing offcer had made addition with
respect to permanent establishment in the case of Petitioner and
consequently denied it benefts of the double taxation avoidance
Mugdha 13 of 18
14 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
agreement. The entire income was taxed at 40% instead of 10% as
declared by Petitioner. Then the matter was appealed to CIT(A). The
additions were deleted. Against the said deletions, the Department
fled an Appeal before the ITAT being ITA No.4632/MUM/2006
against the order of CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter back
to the assessing offcer for fresh examination. It is stated that the
Department had accepted this order of the ITAT. However,
Petitioner challenged this order before this Court by way of an
Appeal raising the following two questions :-
"(i): Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Tribunal was justifed in not concluding that the
Appellant does not have a Permanent
Establishment in India and instead setting aside
the order of the CIT (A)?
(ii):Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Tribunal was justifed in remanding the matter
back to Assessing offcer for fresh consideration
when the Assessing offcer has not discharged the
burden of proving that the Appellant had a PE in
India?"
12. This Court, by its order dated 29th August, 2018,
answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee
and against the Revenue and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Mugdha 14 of 18
15 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
This Court restored the Revenue's Appeal to the fle of the Tribunal
for a decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
13. The matter is, therefore, pending before the ITAT for
fresh adjudication and this is the dispute, which Petitioner is
desirous of settling under the DTVSV Act. Relevant factual aspects
are not in dispute. Against order of departmental assessing offcer
at frst rung, appeal under Section 246 of the IT Act had been
preferred by the assessee/petitioner to the CIT(A) and the same was
decided in its favour. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A), the
Revenue-Respondent preferred an Appeal bearing No.
4632/MUM/2006 before ITAT as provided under Section 253 of the
IT Act. Against order of remand passed by ITAT, Petitioner
preferred appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the IT Act.
The substantial questions of law in appeal before this Court were
tested and the matter resulted in setting aside order of ITAT,
restoring the Appeal No.4632/MUM/2006 before ITAT for decision
pursuant to aforementioned orders of this Court. What had been
revived in the process, is the matter before ITAT which was
preferred by the Revenue. The Appeal before ITAT was not fled by
the assessee against order of CIT(A). Here it is the Revenue which
Mugdha 15 of 18
16 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
went to ITAT against order of CIT(A). This Court had sent back the
matter to ITAT and what was before ITAT is a matter by Revenue.
Factually as well as in law it was Revenue's matter which stands
revived. It is also not the Revenue's case that they have not
accepted the said decision of this Court. Going by the above
discussion, to our mind, there is no doubt that Appeal
No.4632/MUM/2006, which is pending, is Revenue's Appeal, which
has also all along in Form-1 as well as in Form-3 been referred to as
an Appeal by the department. Moreover, this fact is also clearly
borne out by the oral judgment of this Court dated 29 th August,
2018. This would leave nothing more for us to say except that the
Revenue has completely misunderstood the facts. In the whole
process, what is resurrected under orders of High Court is not the
proceeding in ITAT by Petitioner, but of the Revenue preferred
under Section 253 of the IT Act bearing No. 4632/MUM/2006,
where the Revenue is Appellant. May be the Appeal by the Revenue
is revived at the instance of Petitioner because of its proceedings in
the High Court, but that would by no stretch of imagination make
the appeal bearing No. 4632/MUM/2006 before ITAT, an appeal by
Petitioner under Section 253 of the IT Act. Setting aside of order of
the ITAT in the Appeal by Revenue and remand to ITAT postulates
Mugdha 16 of 18
17 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
revival of appeal by the Revenue. It would therefore not be correct
to say that the matter bearing Appeal No.4632/MUM/2006 under
Section 253 of the IT Act before the ITAT in the present case
becomes an Appeal by Petitioner, as ITA No. 4632/MUM/2006 has
been restored to the ITAT on the Assessee's Appeal to High Court
and not of the Revenue. Considering that the objective of the
Scheme is to not only beneft the tax payer, but also the Revenue's
collection, we do not wish to say any further.
14. Having observed that the pending Appeal No.
4632/MUM/2006 is a Revenue Appeal, the frst proviso of Section 3
of the DTVSV Act would become applicable and, accordingly, the
amount payable by the Petitioner would be 50% of the amount, viz.,
50% of the disputed tax.
15. Accordingly, we quash and set aside Form-3 dated 26 th
March, 2021 issued by Respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2002-
2003. We, further direct Respondent No.1 to issue fresh Form-3 in
accordance with our above discussion within two weeks from the
date of pronouncement of this judgment.
Mugdha 17 of 18
18 Judgment-WP 1028-21.odt
16. Petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
Mugdha 18 of 18
