SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
M/S Ess Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie (Earlier Known As M/S Espn Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C.Et Compagnie) - Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10939 & 10940 of 2018 and CM No. 42617 & 42619 of 2018
Decided On : 05-07-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr. Divesh Chawla, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior Standing Counsel.

Point of Law : Income escaping assessment - Procedure for Assessment - Failure to arrive at conclusion Section 144C proceeding cannot become ruse for initiating proceedings under Section 147/148 of Act absence of new material emerging before AO which gives AO reason to believe that assessee's income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147/148 , 144C and 92 CA (3) - Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 10D – Partnership firm - Assessment orders - Whether respondent can continue with impugned proceedings based on same material which was examined and qua which opinion was rendered by the AO while passing draft assessment orders - Petitions are directed against separate but identical orders - ESSA is a partnership firm established under laws of Mauritius - Two partners in ESSA are ESPN Mauritius Ltd. an entity incorporated in Mauritius and having 99.9% share in profits of ESSA - While other partner, i.e., ESPN Network Pte Ltd.; incorporated in Singapore, held a 0.1% share in the profits earned by ESSA.

Finding of the court : There was no good reason, according to us, for the AO to resort to procedure for assessment provided under Section 144C of Act when such orders had already been passed and there was no change in status of petitioners in AY in issue, i.e., AY 2013- 2014. Petitioners’ status in AY 2013-2014, as in above referred years, continued as a non-resident foreign partnership firm. The AO, however, as noticed above, took the aid of assessment regime prescribed under Section 144C of Act despite TPO having passed two separate but similar orders which concluded that no action was called for qua petitioners though, their associated enterprise, i.e., SSIPL was being subjected to TP Audit - Explanation 2(b) appended to Section 147 of Act would come to aid of the respondent is completely misconceived given the fact that, in instant cases, proceedings under said provision have been undertaken based on a review of material which was already available on record - Failure to arrive at a logical conclusion in a Section 144C proceeding cannot become ruse for initiating proceedings under Section 147/148 of Act in absence of new material emerging before AO which gives AO reason to believe that assessee's income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

Result : Writ petitions allowed

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface.................................................................................................................. 2

Background facts pertaining to W.P. (C) 10939/2018................................................................ 3

Background facts pertaining to W.P. (C) 10940/2018................................................................... 8

Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners ...................................................................... 11

Submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent................................................................. 16

Analysis and Reasons......................................................................................................... 19

Conclusion............................................................................................................. 31

Preface:

1. These writ petitions are directed against separate but identical orders. The orders impugned bear the same date and content. The first writ petition has been filed by ESS Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C Et Compagnie (Earlier Known as ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. Et Compagnie) [hereafter referred to as “ESSA”] while the second writ petition has been filed by ESS Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie [in short “ESSD”]. However, ESSA and ESSD will collectively be referred to as petitioners unless the context requires otherwise.

2. The impugned orders, passed in the instant matters, concern the following:

    i. orders containing reasons, dated 20.03.2018, based on which the Assessing Officer [in short “A.O.”] issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”] dated 29.03.2018;

(ii). notices dated 29.03.2018, issued under Section 148 of the Act; and

(iii). orders dated 24.09.2018, whereby the objections filed by the petitioners to the impugned reasons were disposed of by the AO.

3. Since the facts in both cases are similar, the above-captioned writ petitions are being disposed of via a common judgment.

3.1. The aforementioned orders concern the assessment year [in short “A.Y.”] 2013-2014.

3.2. Before we set forth the core issues, which arise for consideration, in the above-captioned writ petitions, which are similar, it would be convenient, to outline, in detail, the facts and circumstances obtaining in one of the writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (C) 10939/2018 instituted by ESSA. We may note that counsel for the parties were agreed that the decision in W.P. (C) 10939/2018 would apply mutatis mutandis to the other writ petition as well, i.e., W.P. (C) 10940/2018.

Background facts pertaining to W.P. (C) 10939/2018:

4. ESSA is a partnership firm established under the laws of Mauritius. The two partners in ESSA are ESPN Mauritius Ltd. [now known as Worldwide Wickets, Mauritius]; an entity incorporated in Mauritius and having 99.9% share in the profits of ESSA. While the other partner, i.e., ESPN Network Pte Ltd.; incorporated in Singapore, held a 0.1% share in the profits earned by ESSA. This position also obtained in the AY in issue, i.e., AY 2013-2014. ESSA is engaged in the business of acquiring and allotting advertising time and programme sponsorship [hereafter referred to as “advertising time”] in connection with television programming. ESSA entered into agreements for the sale of advertising time with ESPN Software India Private Limited [now known as Star Sports India Private Limited (in short “SSIPL”)], a company incorporated under the laws of India, which in turn has merged with Star India Private Limited. ESSA has claimed that it entered into the aforementioned agreement with SSIPL on a principal to principal basis and that SSIPL, on its own steam carried on the business of allotting advertisement time slots to various advertisers and advertising agencies in India.

5. On 28.11.2013, ESSA filed its

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                    Please visit our Training & Support
                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top