Case Law Details
Delmas, France Vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Scope of dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) is set out in Article 5(5) and Article 5(6) of the Indo French DTAA. Article 5(5) provides the situations in which business being carried on through a dependent agent results in creation of PE in the source state. The provisions of Article 5(6) are, however, slightly at variance with standard tax treaty provisions, and need to be analysed in some detail .
The significant feature of Article 5(6) of Indo French DTAA, which is somewhat unique in the sense that this provision is in clear deviation from the standard UN and OECD Model conventions, is that even when an agent is wholly or almost wholly dependent on the foreign enterprise, he will still be treated as an independent agent unless additional condition of the transactions being not an arm’s length conditions is fulfilled. It is so for the reason that Article 5(6) provides that even when an agent is wholly or almost wholly dependent on the principal, i.e. foreign enterprise, “he will not be considered an agent of an independent status within the meaning of this paragraph if it is shown that the transactions between the agent and the enterprise were not made under at arms length conditions” ( emphasis by underlining supplied by us). In other words, as long as it is not shown that the transactions between the agent and the principal are not made under arm’s length conditions, the agent is treated to be an independent agent. The implication of the agent being treated as an independent agent is that the provisions of dependent agent PE, as set out in Article 5(5), can never come into play in the cases in which the business is carried out by the foreign enterprise through an independent agent, because Article 5(5), which overrides the provisions of Article 5(1) and 5(2), specifically provides that “where a person other than an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 6 applies ( emphasis by underlining supplied by us) is acting in one of the Contracting States on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State, that enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the first-mentioned Contracting State” subject to fulfillment of certain other conditions which are admittedly fulfilled in the present case. Therefore, as long as the agent is of independent status, the provisions of Article 5(5) cannot be invoked. It is also important to bear in mind that since provisions of Article 5(5) override the provisions of Article 5(1) and 5(2), no permanent establishment under article 5(1) and (2) can be said to come into existence, so far agency situations are concerned, until the conditions of Article 5(5) are also satisfied. Learned Departmental Representative fairly does not dispute, and rightly so, that the permanent establishment in the present case will be governed by Article 5(5) read with Article 5(6). Learned Departmental Representative’s only objection is that since an important aspect, i.e. aspect relating to the transactions having been done in arm’s length conditions, has not been examined by the Assessing Officer, the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for specific adjudication on the transactions between principal and agent having been done in arm’s length conditions. We are unable to see any merits in this plea. As held by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Airlines Rotables Ltd Vs DDIT8, “It is a settled position of law, as noted by the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. 9,that the onus is on the Revenue to demonstrate that a PE of the foreign enterprise exists in India”. In the present case, i.e. in the case of DAPE in accordance with provisions of Indo French DTAA, the onus is even greater inasmuch the very foundation of DAPE rests on a negative finding with respect to the wholly dependent or almost wholly dependent agent i.e. “if it is shown that the transactions between the agent and the enterprise were not made under at arms length conditions”. Unless this negative finding is on record, it cannot be inferred that the agent is not of an independent status. No such finding was given by the Assessing Officer, or even by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Even in the proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record which at least prima facie demonstrates, or even indicates, that the transactions between the principal and agent are not under arm’s length conditions. Once this onus is not discharged by the revenue authorities at any of these stages, and in accordance with the law laid down by Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc 10, we have to hold that the assessee did not have any PE in India. We are not inclined to grant a fresh inning to the Assessing Officer for making roving and fishing inquiries on the aspect of transactions not having been done in arm’s length conditions– particularly as there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest a prima facie case in this regard. A negative finding in this regard is a sine qua non for making out a case for existence of DAPE in the context of Indo French DTAA, and this finding being absent, we have to hold that the stand of the Assessing Officer, with regard to existence of PE, is not sustainable in law. As regards reference to Hon’ble Visakhapatnam Port Trust’s case11, the observations made therein don’t apply in this context as it was not dealing with Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) which is now the case before us. As we have seen earlier, the provisions of DAPE override the provisions regarding fixed place PE, and, therefore, any observations made in the context of fixed place PE don’t apply to the DAPE situations. As regards the reference to the OECD Model Convention commentaries or other standard literature in the context of DAPE, it cannot be of any help in interpretation of DAPE provisions in Indo French DTAA because of a somewhat peculiar provision in Article 5(5) read with Article 5(6), which is not part of OECD or UN Model Convention, and which provides that “However, when the activities of such an agent are devoted wholly or almost wholly on behalf of that enterprise, he will not be considered an agent of an independent status within the meaning of this paragraph if it is shown that the transactions between the agent and the enterprise were not made under at arm’s length conditions.”. We have also noted that the DRP has held that there is a PE on the short ground that assessee’s claim for applicability of Article 9 presupposes existence of a PE, but it is difficult to comprehend as to how existence of a PE can be inferred merely because the assessee has made a particular claim, which is rejected anyway. The onus of establishing that there is a PE, as we have noted earlier in the discussions, is on the revenue authorities and there is no room for inferences being drawn up in this respect merely because the assessee has made a particular claim. Similarly, reference to agent’s authority to conclude contracts, as has been made by the DRP, is not decisive test either because even when agent has the authority to conclude contracts, it is still to be established that the agent is not an independent agent. That exercise is not even conducted in this case. The Assessing Officer’s reliance on OECD Commentary, therefore, is of no avail either. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we set aside and vacate the Assessing Officer’s findings with regard to existence of assessee’s PE in India. We may, at the cost of repetition, clarify that these conclusions are arrived at in the light of the factual position that there are no findings by the Assessing Officer, or the Dispute Resolution Panel, to the effect that the transactions between the agent and the assessee are not at an arm’s length price, and that, in view of the provisions of Article 5(6) of Indo French DTAA, such a finding by the revenue is a sine qua non for existence of DAPE. To this extent, our decision is confined to the facts of this case for the particular assessment year before us.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI
ITA No. 9001/Mum/10
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
