PCIT Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
In , the Delhi High Court considered a preliminary objection raised by the respondent-assessee in an appeal filed by the Revenue concerning allowability of remuneration paid to expatriate employees.
The respondent argued that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while deciding the present matter, had relied upon its earlier order dated 31.08.2020 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 passed in the assessee’s own case. It was submitted that the Revenue, while challenging the Tribunal’s order for AY 2014-15 before the High Court in ITA 425/2024, had not raised any ground relating to remuneration paid to expatriate employees. Since the appeal for AY 2014-15 had already been dismissed, the respondent contended that the Revenue was barred from raising the same issue in subsequent years on the principle of consistency.
The Revenue, however, submitted that although ordinarily consistency should be maintained, the omission in AY 2014-15 occurred because the Assessing Officer, while preparing the scrutiny report relating to the Tribunal’s order, failed to mention the issue concerning remuneration paid to expatriate employees. Consequently, the competent authorities, including the Commissioner and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, were never made aware of the issue while deciding whether to file an appeal. The Revenue argued that no conscious decision had been taken either to challenge or not to challenge the issue for AY 2014-15.
