Dear akash please refer highlighted lines in following circular
CIRCULAR NO. 7/2007 DATED 23-10-2007
Procedure for refund of tax deducted at source under section 195 to the person deducting the tax – section 239 of the Income Tax 1961 – Refunds
The Board had issued Circular No. 790 dated 20th April, 2000, laying down the procedure for refund of tax deducted under section 195, in certain situations to the person deducting the tax at source from the payment to the non-resident. Representations have been received in the Board from taxpayers requesting that the said Circular may be amended to take into account situations where genuine claim for refund arises to the person deducting the tax at source from payment to the non-resident and it does not fall in the purview of the said Circular.
2. The cases which are being referred to the Board mainly relate to circumstances where, after the deposit into Government account of the tax deducted at source under section 195,
a) the contract is cancelled and no remittance is made to the non-resident;
b) the remittance is duly made to the non-resident, but the contract is cancelled. In such cases, the remitted amount has been returned to the person responsible for deducting tax at source;
c) the contract is cancelled after partial execution and no remittance is made to the non-resident for the non-executed part;
d) the contract is cancelled after partial execution and remittance related to non-executed part is made to the non-resident. In such cases, the remitted amount has been returned to the person responsible for deducting the tax at source or no remittance is made but tax was deducted and deposited when the amount was credited to the account of the non-resident;
e) there occurs exemption of the remitted amount from tax either by amendment in law or by notification under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961;
f) an order is passed under section 154 or 248 or 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reducing the tax deduction liability of a deductor under section 195;
g) there occurs deduction of tax twice from the same income by mistake;
h) there occurs payment of tax on account of grossing up which was not required under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961;
i) there occurs payment of tax at a higher rate under the domestic law while a lower rate is prescribed in the relevant double taxation avoidance treaty entered into by India.
2.1 In the cases mentioned above, income does not either accrue to the non-resident or it accrues but the excess amount in respect of which refund is claimed, is borne by the deductor. The amount deducted as tax under section 195 and paid to the credit of the Government therefore belongs to the deductor. At present, a refund is given only on a claim being made by the non-resident with whom the transaction was intended or in terms of Circular No. 790 dated 20th April, 2000.
3. In the type of cases referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2, the non-resident not having received any payment would not apply for a refund. For cases covered by sub-paragraph (b) to (i) of paragraph 2, no claim may be made by the non-resident where he has no further dealings with the resident deductor of tax or the tax is to be borne by the resident deductor. This resident deductor is therefore put to genuine hardship as he would not be able to recover the amount deducted and deposited as tax.
4. The matter has been considered by the Board. In the type of cases referred to above, where no income has accrued to the non-resident due to cancellation of contract or where income has accrued but no tax is due on that income or tax is due at a lesser rate, the amount deposited to the credit of Government to that extent under section 195, cannot be said to be “tax”.
4.1 It has been decided that, this amount can be refunded, with prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director General of Income-tax concerned, to the person who deducted it from the payment to the non-resident, under section 195.
5. Refund to the person making payment under section 195 is being allowed as income does not accrue to the non-resident or if the income is accruing no tax is due or tax is due at a lesser rate. The amount paid into the Government account in such cases to that extent, is no longer “tax”. In view of this, no interest under section 244A is admissible on refunds to be granted in accordance with this circular or on the refunds already granted in accordance with Circular No. 769 or Circular No. 790.
6. In case of refund being made to the person who made the payment under section 195, the Assessing Officer may, after giving intimation to the deductor, adjust it against any existing tax liability of the deductor under the Income-tax Act, 1961, Wealth-tax Act, 1957 or any other direct tax law. The balance amount, if any, should be refunded to the person who made such payment under section 195. A separate refund voucher to the extent of such liability under each of the direct taxes should be prepared by the Income-tax Officer or the Assessing Officer in favour of the “Income-tax Department” and sent to the bank along with the challan of the appropriate type. The amount adjusted and the balance, if any, refunded would be debitable under the major head “020-Corporation Tax” or the major head “021-Taxes on incomes other than Corporation tax” depending upon whether the payment was originally credited to the major head “020-Corporation tax” or to the major head “021-Taxes on Income other than Corporation tax”.
7. A refund in terms of this circular should be granted only after obtaining an undertaking that no certificate under section 203 of the Income-tax Act has been issued to the non-resident. In cases where such a certificate has been issued, the person making the refund claim under this circular should either obtain it or should indemnify the Income-tax Department from any possible loss on account of any separate claim of refund for the same amount by the non-resident. A refund in terms of this circular should be granted only if the deductee has not filed return of income and the time for filing of return of income has expired.
8. The refund as per this circular is, inter alia, permitted in respect of transactions with non-residents, which have either not materialized or have been cancelled subsequently. It, therefore, needs to be ensured by the Assessing Officer that they disallow corresponding transaction amount, if claimed, as an expense in the case of the person, being the deductor making refund claim. Besides, in all cases, the Assessing Officer should also ensure that in the case of a deductor making the claim of refund, the corresponding disallowance of expense amount representing TDS refunded is made.
9. The limitation for making a claim of refund under this circular shall be two years from the end of the financial year in which tax is deducted at source. However, all cases for claim of refund under items (c) to (i) of paragraph 2 which were pending before the issue of this circular and where the claim for refund was made after the issuance of Circular No. 790 may also be considered.
10. It has been represented to the CBDT that in Circular No. 769 dated 6th August, 1998, there was no time limit for making a claim for refund. A time limit of two years, for making a refund claim, was stipulated vide Circular No. 790 dated 20th April, 2000. Some cases covered by Circular No. 769, which were also covered by Circular No. 790, now listed in item (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 of this Circular, and filed before the issue of Circular No. 790, became time-barred because of the specification of time limit in Circular No. 790. It is hereby clarified that such cases may also be considered for refund.
11. This Circular is issued in supersession of the Circular No.790/2000 dated 20th April, 2000.
12. The contents of this Circular may be brought to the notice of all officers in your region.
CAclubindia
