- (1.)THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order -dated 22.07.1999, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Delhi Bench 4E' Delhi) in ITA No.7288/Del/1992.
(2.)THE substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:
Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was legally justified in holding that it was not ONGC4s obligation to deduct tax at source on the basis that the assessee was an agent of the non -resident company (NRC) namely M/s Atwood Oceanics Intl. SA for the period under consideration whereas vide its agreement dated 22.2.1985 corporate tax liability after 27.10.1984 was to rest with the aforesaid NRC and not with the ONGC?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT is legally justified in deleting the amount of interest charged at Rs. 10,29,035/ - Under Section 201(1A) of I.T. Act?

Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that M/s Atwood Oceanics Intl. S.A. entered into contract with ONGC for charter hiere of its rig Gettysburge upto 30.9.1984. The tax liability of the non -resident foreign company was undertaken by ONGC and it accordingly filed return on year to year basis throughout the duration of the contract. The year ending for the present assessment year was 30.9.1984. From 28.10.1984, the corporate tax liability of the non -resident company was left to be decided by further contracts. Subsequently, the non -resident company and ONGC executed a contract vide their agreement dated 22.2.1985 by making minor amendment that the corporate tax liability after 27.10.1984 would rest with the non -resident foreign company. The Assessing Officer accordingly initiated the proceedings under Section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on the reasoning that the assessee failed to deduct the tax as required under the Act for the payment made to the non -resident foreign company and accordingly imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,29,035/ -. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee went in second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal while relying on the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Premier Tyres Ltd. [1982]134ITR17(Bom) and the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bunge and Co. Ltd. v. ITO : [1971]79ITR93(Cal) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the Department has come up in the appeal before this Court.

(3.)WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments given by the courts below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, after having gone through the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as also the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and in the light of the material available with us, we are of the view that the question of law raised for determination in the present case has already been concluded by the finding of fact and there appears to be no such substantial question of law to be answered by this Court. The Tribunal while relying on the judgments rendered by Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court has rightly recorded a finding that the assessee cannot be saddled with the obligation to deduct tax at source when it was appointed as agent of the non -resident company. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that since the assessee was appointed as agent of the non -resident for the assessment year 1986 -87, relevant to the previous year 1.10.1984 to 30.9.1985 and including the period of alleged default i.e. 28.10.1984 to 31.3.1985 and since the assessment was completed both under Sections 141A and 143(3) of the I.T. Act for both the tax protected and non -tax protected tax, the assessee was the agent of the non -resident company for both the years. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that there was no reasonable clause for charging interest Under Section 201(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has elaborately dealt with each and every ground raised in the appeal and we are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in its judgment. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are the findings of fact and do not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the questions raised in the application are accordingly decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.
;