Moot Court and Practical Training End-Term-Assignment

Topic-: CIVIL MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Submitted By

MOHAMMAD ZIYA ANSARI

BALLB (HONS)
SEMESTER-X
ENROLLMENT NO- GI 6492
FACULTY NO- 17BALLB-072

Submitted To

Dr. Hashmat Ali Khan Sir

Professor, Faculty of Law

Aligarh Muslim University

ALIGARH-202002 (INDIA)

2021-22
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

CHEETAH AND CHETAK PVT. LTD. (PETITIONER)

V.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
INCOME TAX AUTHORITY (RESPONDENT)

CHEETAH AND CHETAK PVT. LTD. (APPLICANT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT

OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT- INCOME TAX AUTHORITY

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT- INCOME TAX AUTHORITY

 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... IV

Books.......................................................................................................................................... iv

Foreign Cases..............................................................................................................................iv

Statute......................................................................................................................................... iv

Indian Cases.................................................................................................................................v

CBDT Circular............................................................................................................................ix

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................................X

STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................................X

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.........................................................................................................XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................XII

ARGUMENT ADVANCED..........................................................................................................1

I. The Writ Petition Filed Before The High Court Is Not Maintainable................................. 1

A. Existence of an efficacious alternative remedy would bar the institution of the writ.........1

i. The petitioner did not exercise the prescribed course of action....................................... 1

ii. Appeal under s.246, I-T Act is the adequate remedy...................................................... 2

B. There is no infringement of fundamental rights..................................................................2

II. The Consideration Under The License Agreement Constitutes Royalty................................ 3

A. The transaction does not come under the purview of the Singapore-India DTAA.............3

i. Zeon is not a resident of Singapore under Sec. 2 of the Singapore Income Tax Act,
1948..................................................................................................................................... 3

i|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

ii. The lack of a Tax Residency Certificate has necessary significance on the
determination of the resident status..................................................................................... 4

B. The consideration paid made by the petitioner under the license agreement amounts to
royalty under S.9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act, 1961.......................................................................... 4

a. The end user reserves the right to make a copy of the software, to store it and to take
a back-up of the same...................................................................................................... 5

b. The software in question is in the nature of shrink wrap software.............................. 5

c. The payment was made by the end user for the grant of license in respect of a
copyright.......................................................................................................................... 5

d. Transfer of exclusive right in the computer programme is not essential.....................6

e. No distinction between copyright and a "copyrighted article".................................... 6

ii. Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is constitutionally valid.
............................................................................................................................................. 6

a. Parliament has the power to make retrospective statutes.............................................6

b. Explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi) does not violate the fundamental rights.........................7

c. Explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi) does not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution....................7

d. Explanation 4 does not violate article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India...............7

iii. Zeon’s LO is a business connection under S. 9(1) of the I-T Act.................................. 8

III. The Reopening And Reassessment Are Valid And In Consonance With Law..................... 9

A. The Reassessment is consonance with law.........................................................................9

i. Reassessment can be done for the concerned AYs...........................................................9

a. The assessing officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had
escaped assessment under Sec. 147................................................................................. 9

ii | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]
1. The assessing officer had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped
assessment with the material on hand.........................................................................9

2. The income has escaped assessment......................................................................10

3. The assessee had not disclosed all material facts.................................................. 11

4. The assessee had not disclosed all facts fully and truly.........................................11

5. The assessment was rightly conducted beyond the period of four years...............12

b. The notice served under section 148 was valid......................................................... 12

1. The notice served was not vague........................................................................... 13

2. The limitation period of a notice is not addressed by the High Court................... 13

ii. The Reopening is not in contravention with the CBDT circular dated 29/05/2012...... 13

B. The reassessment is not bad in law................................................................................... 14

IV. The Petitioner Has Been Rightly Charged As An Assessee-In-Default........................ 15

PRAYER................................................................................................................................... XIII

iii | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

ABHE SINGH YADAV, LAW OF WRITS (2009 ED.) 1

AMIT DHANDHA, NS BINDRA'S INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 6
BMR ADVISORS, MANAGING TAX DISPUTES IN INDIA, (1st Ed. 2013). 15
JUSTICE B L HANSARIA’S, WRIT JURISDICTION (3 ed. 2005) 1
K.R. SAMPATH, ARTICLEWISE ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S DOUBLE TAXATION 3
AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS 245 (1D ed. 2013)
KANGA & PALKHIVALA’S, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INCOME TAX (10 ed. 1
2014)
LAW OF WRITS (6 ED. 2006) 1
RICHARD MORGAN, MORGAN & BURDEN ON COMPUTER CONTRACTS 79 (8th ed. 5
2009)
ROBERT BOND, SOFTWARE CONTRACTS 65 (4th ed. 2010) 5
SAMPATH IYENGAR, LAW OF INCOME TAX 1
SIR KIM LEWISON, THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS 309 (5th ed. 2011) 5

FOREIGN CASES

Calcutta Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Nicholson, (1876) 1 TC 83 3

Cesena Co. Ltd. v. Nicholson, (1876) 1 TC 83 3
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v. Howe, (1906) 5 TC 198 (HL) 3
Imperial Continental Gas Association v. Henry Nicholson, (1876) 1 TC 138 4
London Bank of Mexico v. Apthorpe, (1891) 3 TC 143 4
Noble Ltd (BW) v. Mitchell, (1926) 11 TC 372 4
Sao Paulo Railway Co. Ltd. v. Carter, (1896) 3 TC 198 4

STATUTE

iv | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
Income Tax Act, 1961 1

INDIAN CASES

ACIT v. Banswara Syntex, 272 ITR 642 14

Additional Director of Income Tax v. R. Liners Ltd., (2014) 61 SOT 3 (Mum) 4
Ajai Verma v. CIT, 304 ITR 30 14
Ajanta Pharma Ltd v. ACIT, (2007) 295 ITR 218 (Bom) 2
Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd., (1953) 23 ITR 101 (SC) 8
Ashoka v. UOI, 29 ITR 507 14
Bansilal Abirchand Firm (RB) v. CIT, (1964) 53 ITR 536 (Bom) 10
Baywest Power and Energy P Ltd v. ACIT, (2009) 296 ITR 532 (Mad) 2
Bennett Coleman v Damle, 157 ITR 812 15
Bhagwant Kishore Sud v. ITAT, (1999) 240 ITR 688 1
Bikram Kishore (Maharaja) v. Province of Assam, (1949) 17 ITR 220 (Cal) 10
Birla VXL Ltd. v. ACIT, (1996) 217 ITR 1 (Guj) 10
Burmah Oil v. ITO, 165 ITR 264 14
Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) 11
Canara Sales Corpn Ltd v. CIT, (1989) 176 ITR 340 (Kar). 11
Chandi Ram v. ITO (1997) 225 ITR 611 (Raj) 2
Chandra Lakshmi Tempered Glass Co Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (1997) 225 ITR 199 (HP) 2
Chattanatha v. ITO , 38 ITR 325 14
Chinnaswami v. ITO, 61 ITR 400 14
CIT v R.D. Aggarwal & Co., (1965) AIR 1526 8
CIT v. Ankitesh P. Ltd., 340 ITR 14 13
CIT v. Balvantrai S Jain, (1969) 72 ITR 59 (Bom) 12
CIT v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm (RB), (1968) 70 ITR 220 (Cal) 10
CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC) 13
CIT v. McLeod & Co. Ltd., (1982) 134 ITR 674 (Cal) 14

v|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

CIT v. Mintu Kalita, (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) 12

CIT v. Nestle India, 243 ITR 435 15
CIT v. Peirce Leslie & Co. Ltd., (1997) 227 ITR 759 (Mad) 14
CIT v. Pratap, 41 ITR 421 (SC); 12
CIT v. Ranoli Investment, 235 ITR 433 15
CIT v. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC) 12
CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2011) 345 ITR 494 (Kar) 5
CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi, (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 12
Citibank N.A. v. Ojha (S.K.),(2002) 257 ITR 663 (Bom) 11
Dewas Soya Ltd. v. ACIT, 349 ITR 676 1
Dinesh Chand Jain v. Dy CIT, 280 ITR 567 1
Express Hotels (P) Ltd v. State of Gujrat, (1989) AIR 1949 (SC) 7
Farhat Hasan v CIT , 284 ITR 111 1
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant v. Union of India, (1990) AIR 1637 (SC) 7
Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd v. ACIT, (2007) 294 ITR 620 (Mad) 2
Geo Miller v. DCIT, 254 ITR 620 14
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors., 259 ITR 19 (SC) 1
Gracemac Corporation v. Assessee, I.T. App. No. 1331/2010 (Del) 5
Grindlays Bank v. CIT, 201 ITR 148 13
Gutal Trading In re, 278 ITR 643 (AAR) 8
GVK Power Ltd v. ACIT (OSD), 336 ITR 451 1
Gwalior Rayon v. CIT, 140 ITR 832 15
Harbhajan Singh v. Bansal, ITO (1999) 235 ITR 431 2
Hari Babu v. CIT, (1974) 96 ITR 118 (All) 10
Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd v. ITO, (2002) 254 ITR 370 (Cal) 2
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 4
(2010) 36 SOT 120 (Mum)
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) AIR 1019 (SC) 7
Hyderabad Allwyn v. ITO, 46 ITR 988; Gyaniram v. ITO, 47 ITR 472 14

vi | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

India Steam Co. Ltd. v. JCIT, (2005) 275 ITR (Cal) 11

Indian Herbs v. DCIT, 212 ITR 425 14
Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India v ACIT, (2002) 256 ITR 115 1
(AP)
ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 10
ITO v Mahadeo Lal Tulsyan (1978) 111 ITR 25 (Cal) 10
ITO v. Calcutta Chromotype Pvt Ltd, (1974) 97 ITR 55 12
ITO v. Gujarat Narmada, 247 ITR 305 15
ITO v. Manoharlal Kothari, 236 ITR 257 13
ITO v. Ramnarain Bhojnagarwalla, (1976) 103 ITR 797 (SC) 10
ITO v. Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. P. Ltd., 269 ITR 338 1
J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (1962) 6
IILLJ 580 All
Jaganath Mishra v. CIT, 253 ITR 282 14
Jagneswar Day and Bibah Ranjan Day v. ITO ,(1998) 233 ITR 416 (Gau) 2
Kapur Sons Steels Pvt Ltd v. ACIT, (2004) 266 ITR 478 (P&H) 2
Krishna Gupta v. CIT, 231 ITR 628 14
Krishnaswamy S. Pd v Union of India (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC) 15
Kumar Kamal Singh (Maharaj) v. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 1 (SC) 10
Kunjannamma v. ITO, 42 ITR 640 14
Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer, (2005) 92 ITD 6
366 (Bang)
M/s. Brown & Sharp INC v. DCIT, (2014) 160 TTJ (Delhi) 8
Madhya Pradesh v. ITO , (1965) 67 ITR 637 (SC) 1
Meenakshi v. State of Karnataka, (1983) AIR 1283 (SC) 7
Merchant v. CED, (1989) 177 ITR 490 (SC) 14
Mewar Textile Mills ltd v. Union of India, AIR (1955) Raj 114 6
Microsoft Corporation v. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) 42 SOT 550 (Del) 6
Millennium IT Software Ltd., In re, 338 ITR 391 (AAR) 6

vii | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Motorola Inc. v. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi)(SB) 6

Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu v. ITO, (1986) 160 ITR 526 (P&H) 12
Mulchand v. ITO, 252 ITR 758 14
Narayan v. ITO, 35 ITR 388 (SC) 12
Narottam and Pereira Ltd v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom) 3
Nedunchezhian v. DCIT, 279 ITR 342 1
Nirmalkumar Ashok Kumar v Gopi, (1991) 187 ITR 329 (Bom) 9
Palaniswami (P) v. CIT, (1977) 106 ITR 811 (Mad) 11
Panchugurumurthy v. CIT, (1995) 211 ITR 51 (Mad) 11
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) 11, 14
Parshuram v. Trivedi 100, ITR 581 14
Pramod Kumar v. ITO, 186 ITR 637 14
Precot Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 273 ITR 347 1
President Talkies v. ITO, 25 ITR 447 14
Radha Rani Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Additional Director of Income Tax, (2007) 16 4
SOT 495 (Delhi)
Radhakant v. Johri, 39 ITR 182 14
Rajamma v. ITO, 152 ITR 657 14
Ramballabh Gupta v. ACIT, 288 ITR 283 14
Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO, 269 ITR 272 14
Raymond Woollen Mills v. CIT, 236 ITR 34 (SC) 14
Reach Cable Networks Ltd. v. DDIT, 299 ITR 316 1
Rekhi v. ITO, 18 ITR 618 14
Sable Waghire Trust v. Achyuta Rao, (1999) 240 ITR 688 (Bom) 1
Sahib Ram Giri v. ITO, 301 ITR 249 1
SAK Industries Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi, 1
(2012) 210TAXMAN85(Delhi)
Sales Tax Officer v. Uttareswari Rice Mills, (1973) 89 ITR 6 (SC) 13
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang) 6

viii | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Sasikumar (PN) v. CIT, (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker) 12

Shahdara Saharanpur Light Railway Co Ltd v. CIT, (1994) 208 ITR 882 (Cal) 11
Sir Bansilal and Co. v Prabhu Dayal, ITO (1990) 185 ITR 287 (Bom) 9
State of Kerela v. Aravind Ramakant Modawadakar, (1999) 7 SCC 400 7
Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. ACIT, 305 ITR 339; Mangilal v. ITO, 325 ITR 507 1
Trivandrum Club v. ADIT (Exemption), (2002) 256 ITR 61 (Ker) 2
UAE Exchange Centre v. Union of India, (2009) 223 CTR (Del) 250 4
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) 3, 4
Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H) 14
VK Const v. CIT, 215 ITR 26 14

CBDT CIRCULAR

No. F. No. 500/111/12009-FTD-1(Pt.) dated 29/05/2012 13

ix | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the petition filed before this
Honourable Court. The petition invokes its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Zeon is a private IT & ITES company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, carrying on its
software business primarily through Singapore. Zeon has been unable to obtain a Tax Residency
Certificate from Singapore in order to claim Singapore Tax Residency for Indian tax purposes.
They have a presence in India through a liaison office. Zeon are credited with designing a
software called Neo, which was revolutionary in the human resource industry and could predict
how well a new recruit would work in an organization that was going to hire him/her and adapt
to the organization’s culture and values. Cheetah & Chetak Private Limited, an Indian
manufacturing private limited company having its registered office in Mumbai, decided to buy
this software.
II. Consequently, an agreement (“Agreement”) was entered into between them and Zeon for the
purchase of software for a price of INR 35,00,000 on a year on year basis. No TDS was deducted
by the manufacturing company at the time of making payments. The Agreement granted the
Licensee a ‘non-exclusive, non-transferable license’ and stated that ‘the license is perpetual in
nature’, according to S. 2(a). Further, the Agreement stipulated that all license fees are ‘exclusive
of and net of any taxes, duties or other such additional sums’, according to S. 4.
III. The manufacturing company filed income tax return without delays, and for AY 03-04
and 04-05, assessment order was passed under S. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA” or
“Act”) . For AY 2005-06, the assessment was completed under S. 143(1) and for AYs 2006-07,
07-08, 08-09, it was completed under S. 143(3) of the ITA. The assessing officer had accepted
the returns and the transaction with Zeon in the above AYs. On July 4, 2014, the assessing
officer sent a notice to Cheetah & Chetak Private Limited under S. 148 and disallowed the
deduction claimed for payments made for these AYs and sort to recover INR 50 lacs from the
assesse. The reason cited was that payments made by the manufacturer constituted ‘royalty’
under S. 9 of the Act, and tax should have been withheld at rate of 25% for all these years while

x|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [STATEMENT OF FACTS]
making payment to Zeon for the software. Manufacturing company was charged under ITA as an
‘assesse-in-default’. Assessee decided to file a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay for all
the AYs for which they had received a 148 notice, contending that the re-opening was bad in law.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I. Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable before the High Court of
Bombay?
ISSUE II. Whether the consideration under License Agreement is royalty?
ISSUE III. Whether the reopening and reassessment are bad in law?
ISSUE IV. Whether the petitioner has been correctly charged as an assessee-in-default?

xi | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE WRIT FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Firstly, the existence of an
efficacious alternative remedy in the Income Tax Act would oust the petitioner from filing the
writ petition. Secondly, no fundamental right was infringed by the amendment introduced in S.9
(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the writ will not be maintainable on this regard.
II. THE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENT AMOUNTS TO ROYALTY
The DTAA between Singapore and India does not cover the concerned transaction as Zeon is not
a resident of Singapore. Firstly, Zeon is not a resident under S. 2 of the Singapore Income Tax
Act, 1948. Secondly, it is incorporated in Cayman Islands.
The consideration under the license agreement is royalty under S.9(1)(vi). The consideration
comes under the ambit of royalty as the use of software includes in it the use of copyright in the
software as there is no distinction between a copyright and a copyrighted article. Further,
Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax act, 1961 is constitutionally valid. The
parliament has the complete power to make retrospective statutes. Moreover, the explanation
does not in any manner violate any fundamental right.
III. THE REOPENING AND REASSESSMENT IS NOT BAD IN LAW
The reopening and reassessment are not bad in law and cannot be held to invalid. Firstly, with
regard to the reassessment, the assessing officer had reason to believe that the income escaped
assessment as the assessee had not disclosed all material facts truly and fully. Secondly, the
reopening was not in contravention of the CBDT Circular dated 29/05/2012. Thirdly, the mistake
made in the reassessment, if any, had to be addressed by way of prescribed statutory provision
and the writ instituted on this regard would not be maintainable before the High Court.
IV. THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CHARGED AS AN ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT Firstly,
the assessee was under an obligation to deduct sums under S. 194J. Secondly, the TDS on royalty
was not an impossible task. Thirdly, there is lack of bona fide reason to believe that tax was not
deductable under S. 194J.

xii | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

(¶1.) It is submitted that the writ filed in the High Court is not maintainable as there existed an
efficacious alternative remedy [A]. Further, the writ is not maintainable on account of non
contravention of any fundamental right. [B]

A. Existence of an efficacious alternative remedy would bar the institution of the writ

(¶2.) A writ is an extraordinary relief1, granted only upon the exhaustion of an existing
alternative remedy2 in a statute. Further, the writ remedy cannot be used as an alternative
remedy3 or as means to adjudge any factual inconsistencies4 as done in appellate courts5. In the
case of Madhya Pradesh v. ITO6 the Supreme Court has held that, when there existed an
adequate alternative remedy, then the writ petition would be dismissed by the court in limine.
The petitioners, in the case at hand, had did not exercise the proper course of action [i] provided
by the alternative remedies [ii] before filing the writ petition.

i. The petitioner did not exercise the prescribed course of action

(¶3.) In the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.7, the Supreme Court laid down the proper
course of action to be taken by the assessee upon being served a notice under S.148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter I-T Act). The Supreme Court laid down that the assessee is

1
SAMPATH IYENGAR, LAW OF INCOME TAX 10174 (12 ed. 2012).
2
Income Tax Act, S.154 1961; S. 263 I-T Act, 1961.
3
Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India v ACIT, (2002) 256 ITR 115 (AP); Nedunchezhian v. DCIT, 279
ITR 342; Reach Cable Networks Ltd. v. DDIT, 299 ITR 316; GVK Power Ltd v. ACIT (OSD), 336 ITR 451; Farhat
Hasan v CIT , 284 ITR 111; Dewas Soya Ltd. v. ACIT, 349 ITR 676.
4
Sahib Ram Giri v. ITO, 301 ITR 249; Precot Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 273 ITR 347; Dinesh Chand Jain v. Dy CIT, 280
ITR 567; ITO v. Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. P. Ltd., 269 ITR 338; Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. ACIT, 305 ITR
339; Mangilal v. ITO, 325 ITR 507.
5
ABHE SINGH YADAV, LAW OF WRITS 27 (2009 ED.); V.G. RAMACHANDRAN’S, LAW OF WRITS 678 (6 ED. 2006);
JUSTICE B L HANSARIA’S, WRIT JURISDICTION 132 (3 ed. 2005).
6
Madhya Pradesh v. ITO , (1965) 67 ITR 637 (SC); Also see, Bhagwant Kishore Sud v. ITAT, (1999) 240 ITR 688;
Sable Waghire Trust v. Achyuta Rao, (1999) 240 ITR 688 (Bom).
7
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors., 259 ITR 19 (SC); Also see SAK Industries Pvt Ltd
v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi, (2012) 210TAXMAN85(Delhi).

1|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

entitled to file objections to the issuance of notice8, post which the assessing officer has to
intimate the assessee with a speaking order. In the present case, the assessee has filed the writ
petition upon the receipt of the notice, in contravention of the prescribed procedure. At such a
stage, it is humbly submitted that the writ petition was pre-mature and not maintainable.

ii. Appeal under s.246, I-T Act is the adequate remedy

(¶4.) A writ petition for reassessment proceedings is not maintainable, as it can be challenged
in appeal and revision as provided in the I-T Act9With respect to notice issued under S. 148, the
Court will not address the question of limitation, as it can be raised only before the necessary tax
authorities.10 Further, the High Court cannot adjudge the sufficiency of the reasons at the stage of
the notice11 and any writ to this regard is dismissed. The petitioners filed the writ on receipt of
the notice under S. 148, without exercising the remedy available in the governing statute.
Therefore, it is submitted that on the existing of an alternate remedy12 the validity of a notice
under S.148 cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition and it should be dismissed.

B. There is no infringement of fundamental rights

(¶5.) It is submitted that Explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi), is not in contravention of any

fundamental right and therefore it is submitted that the writ petition to this regard cannot be
maintainable.
(¶6.) It is humbly submitted by the Respondents that the writ filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable due to the existence of an adequate alternative remedy and there is no violation of
any fundamental right in the enactment of the legislation introduced by way of amendment.

8
KANGA & PALKHIVALA’S, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INCOME TAX 1125 (10 ed. 2014).
9
Income Tax Act, 1961 S. 246; Harbhajan Singh v. Bansal, ITO (1999) 235 ITR 431; Jagneswar Day and Bibah
Ranjan Day v. ITO ,(1998) 233 ITR 416 (Gau); Kapur Sons Steels Pvt Ltd v. ACIT, (2004) 266 ITR 478 (P&H).
10
Chandra Lakshmi Tempered Glass Co Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (1997) 225 ITR 199 (HP); Chandi Ram v. ITO (1997) 225
ITR 611 (Raj).
11
Trivandrum Club v. ADIT (Exemption), (2002) 256 ITR 61 (Ker); Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd v. ITO,
(2002) 254 ITR 370 (Cal).
12
Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd v. ACIT, (2007) 294 ITR 620 (Mad); Ajanta Pharma Ltd v. ACIT, (2007) 295 ITR 218
(Bom); Baywest Power and Energy P Ltd v. ACIT, (2009) 296 ITR 532 (Mad).
2|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

II. THE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES ROYALTY.

(¶7.) It is humbly submitted that the consideration for the license agreement constitutes royalty
under Sec. 9(1)(vi) because the parties to the agreement are not governed by the DTAA between
Singapore and India (hereinafter ‘DTAA S-I’) [A]. Additionally, the consideration is royalty
under Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act [B].

A. The parties do not come under the purview of the Singapore-India DTAA

(¶8.) It is settled law that where India has entered into a treaty for avoidance of double taxation
as also in respect of purposes referred to in Section 90 of the I-T Act, the contracting parties are
governed by the provisions of the treaty.13 The DTAA S-I applies only to the residents of the
contracting state.14 It is submitted that the transaction does not come under the purview of the
DTAA S-I as Zeon is not a resident of Singapore under Sec. 2 of the Singapore Income Tax Act,
1948 [i]. Moreover, the lack of a Tax Residency Certificate (hereinafter TRC) has necessary
significance on the determination of its residence [ii].

i. Zeon is not a resident of Singapore under Sec. 2 of the Singapore Income Tax Act, 1948.

(¶9.) Under Sec. 2 of the Singapore Income Tax Act, 1948 of Singapore, a company is a
resident as when ‘the control and management of whose business is exercised in Singapore’15.
‘Control and management’ is not the same as carrying out business operations of a company.16
‘Control and management’ does not refer to the control and management of the day to day affairs
of the business conducted through agents, employees or servants.17 It refers to the head and
brain which directs all the financial, management and general affairs of the company.18 The

13
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC).
14
Article 1, DTAA S-I.
15
Section 2(Resident)(b), Income Tax Act, (1948). (Singapore).
16
LAW OF INCOME TAX, SAMPATH IYER, 1384 (11th Ed. 2011); K.R. SAMPATH, ARTICLEWISE ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S
DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS 245 (1D ed. 2013).
17
Narottam and Pereira Ltd v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom).
18 De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v. Howe, (1906) 5 TC 198 (HL).

3|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

place from where the directors manage the affairs, conduct the meetings and take decisions of the
company constitutes the de jure and the de facto control management.19
(¶10.) In the case at hand, Zeon just ‘carries out its software business primarily through
Singapore’20. This doesn’t indicate that the directors managed the affairs, conducted meetings
and took decisions for the company through Singapore. ‘Carrying out software business’ could
also indicate mere superintendence, supervision and direction over the day to day affairs by
employees, servants or managers. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that mere carrying out of
business by Zeon does not constitute control and management.

ii. The lack of a Tax Residency Certificate has necessary significance on the determination of the
resident status.

(¶11.) Firstly, TRC has been held to be conclusive proof of residence and primary evidence21 by
the apex court22 and other courts23. The fact that Zeon wasn’t able to obtain a TRC shows that it
was denied TRC by the Singapore Government. It is submitted that non-issuance of TRC
Singapore Government shows that it did not consider Zeon to be a resident of Singapore.
(¶12.) Moreover, Zeon is incorporated in Cayman Islands and is therefore not a domicile of
Singapore. Therefore, it is submitted that Zeon is not a resident of Singapore as it is not
incorporated in Singapore, and lacks management & control in Singapore and hence was not
issued a TRC by the Singapore authorities.
(¶13.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted in front of the Hon’ble Court that the transaction does
not come under the purview of the DTAA S-I.

B. The consideration paid by the petitioner under the license agreement amounts to royalty
under S.9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act, 1961.

19
Narottam and Pereira Ltd v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom).; Cesena Co. Ltd. v. Nicholson, (1876) 1 TC 83;
Calcutta Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Nicholson, (1876) 1 TC 83; Imperial Continental Gas Association v. Henry
Nicholson, (1876) 1 TC 138; London Bank of Mexico v. Apthorpe, (1891) 3 TC 143; Sao Paulo Railway Co. Ltd. v.
Carter, (1896) 3 TC 198; Noble Ltd (BW) v. Mitchell, (1926) 11 TC 372.
20 Page 1, Moot Problem.
21
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, (2010) 36 SOT 120 (Mum).
22
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC).
23
Additional Director of Income Tax v. R. Liners Ltd., (2014) 61 SOT 3 (Mum); Radha Rani Holdings (P) Ltd. v.
Additional Director of Income Tax, (2007) 16 SOT 495 (Delhi); UAE Exchange Centre v. Union of India, (2009)
223 CTR (Del) 250.
4|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶14.) The consideration paid under the license agreement amounts to royalty as it is royalty
under the meaning of S. 9(1)(vi) [i]. Further, Explanation 4 to S. 9(1)(vi) of I-T Act is
constitutionally valid [ii]. In any case, Zeon’s LO amounts to a business connection under S. 9(1)
of the I-T Act and is therefore taxable under the head of business income [iii].

a. The end user reserves the right to make a copy of the software, to store it and to take a back-up
of the same
(¶15.) The Respondent humbly submits that the right to make a copy of a software and the right
to store it amounts to it being a copyrighted work within the meaning of S. 14(1) of the
Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter Copyright Act). And accordingly, if payment is made for the
grant of a license for the said purpose, it would constitute royalty.24 In the facts of the case at
hand, the license agreement in consideration of payment, provided for the right to storage and the
right to take a back-up copy25 of the software.26 The petitioner was also granted conditional
rights to copy27, rent, sublicense and transfer28 under the license agreement which are also
exclusive rights under the S. 14 of the Copyright Act. It is therefore submitted that the software
is a copyrighted work and the royalty payment made consequently is taxable under S. 9(1)(vi) of
the IT Act.

b. The software in question is in the nature of shrink wrap software

(¶16.) It is further submitted that the distribution of shrink wrapped software is construed as a
use of copyright29. As per the facts of the case, the software in question is in the nature of shrink
wrapped software30, therefore the distribution of the same amounts to use of copyright.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the payment for the same is in the nature of royalty and is liable
to be taxed under S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act.

c. The payment was made by the end user for the grant of license in respect of a copyright.
24
CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2011) 345 ITR 494 (Kar); ROBERT BOND, SOFTWARE CONTRACTS 65 (4th
ed. 2010).
25
Page 2, Moot Problem. Clause 2(d) of the License Agreement.
26
RICHARD MORGAN, MORGAN & BURDEN ON COMPUTER CONTRACTS 79 (8th ed. 2009); SIR KIM LEWISON, THE
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS 309 (5th ed. 2011).
27
Page 2, Moot Problem. Clause 2(h) of the License Agreement.
28 Page 2, Moot Problem, Clause 2(f)(i) of the Licese Agreement.
29
Samsung Electronics v. CIT, ITA 131/2010 (Del).
30
Page 1, Moot Problem.
5|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶17.) It is further submitted that if the end user has made a payment for obtaining a license with
respect to a copyright in case of computer software, such a payment would fall within the ambit
of royalty31. As per the facts of this case, the payment made by the petitioner was for obtaining a
license over the software, therefore the same is in the nature of royalty and hence taxable under
S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act.

d. Transfer of exclusive right in the computer programme is not essential

(¶18.) The Respondents most humbly submit that a transfer of an exclusive right in copyright is
not essential32 and for a user of information embedded in the software33, the payment would be
construed as royalty, thereby liable to be taxed34. Additionally, this payment for the software
falls within the ambit of royalty35. Therefore, it is submitted that the payment being in the nature
of royalty is taxable under S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act.

e. No distinction between copyright and a ‘copyrighted article’

(¶19.) Neither the I-T Act, nor the Copyright Act, 1957 distinguish between a ‘copyright’ and
a ’copyrighted article’36. Usage of software includes within it the use of copyright of the software
and the copyright cannot be separated from the software37. It is therefore submitted, that as per
the existing statutes, a use of a copyrighted good includes the use of copyright within it and
hence the payment made for supply of computer software is assessable to taxation under royalty.

ii. Explanation 4 to S. 9(1)(vi)of the I-T Act, 1961 is constitutionally valid.

a. Parliament has the power to make retrospective statutes.

31
Gracemac Corporation v. Assessee, I.T. App. No. 1331/2010 (Del).
32
CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd., (2013) 212 Taxmann 454 (Karn).
33Motorola Inc. v. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi)(SB).
34
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang).
35
Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer, (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang); Millennium IT
Software Ltd., In re, 338 ITR 391 (AAR); CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2011) 345 ITR 494 (Kar).
36
Id.
37
Microsoft Corporation v. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) 42 SOT 550 (Del).
6|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶20.) It is respectfully submitted that the sovereign power of a legislature includes within it, the
power to make laws prospectively and retrospectively.38Consequently, when the legislature
enacts a provision of law for the imposition of taxes with retrospective effect, the tax incurred is
considered to be levied under the authority of law. An act of the legislature would not be
rendered unconstitutional merely by virtue of it being retrospective in nature.39 Therefore it is
submitted that explanation 4 to S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act which clarifies the ambiguity in the
calculation of royalty, is constitutionally valid and not ultra vires the law.

b. Explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi) does not violate the fundamental rights.

(¶21.) It is further submitted that explanation 4 to S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act is not in
contravention of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950
(hereinafter ‘Constitution’).

c. Explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi) does not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution

(¶22.) It is submitted that unless a rate of tax is found to be unreasonable, the courts should not
interfere with the legislature’s discretion with respect to enactment of taxing
statutes.40Accordingly, if the general operation of the statute discharges the burden of taxation
with a reasonable degree of equality, the constitutional mandate is satisfied.41 It is therefore
submitted that explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act sufficiently establishes the conditions
for validity as per the constitutional principles.

d. Explanation 4 does not violate article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

(¶23.) It is further submitted that the mere fact that the imposition of a tax leads to diminution of
profits of individuals does not amount to a violation of rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution42.Additionally, a challenge of the validity of a tax statute on grounds of violation of
fundamental rights entail an extremely high burden of proof. In the facts of the case at hand, no
unreasonableness or arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever has been meted out as a

38
J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (1962) IILLJ 580 All.
39
Mewar Textile Mills ltd v. Union of India, AIR (1955) Raj 114; AMIT DHANDHA, NS BINDRA'S INTERPRETATION
OF STATUTES 245 (11th ed. 2010).
40
Meenakshi v. State of Karnataka, (1983) AIR 1283 (SC).
41
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) AIR 1019 (SC); State of Kerela v. Aravind Ramakant
Modawadakar, (1999) 7 SCC 400.
42
Express Hotels (P) Ltd v. State of Gujrat, (1989) AIR 1949 (SC); Federation of Hotel and Restaurant v. Union of
India, (1990) AIR 1637 (SC).
7|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

consequence of the imposition of explanation 4 of S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act therefore not
amounting to a violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
(¶24.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the consideration under
the license agreement amounted to royalty under S. 9(1)(vi).

iii. Zeon’s LO is a business connection under S. 9(1) of the I-T Act.

(¶25.) Under Sec. 9(1)(i) of the I-T Act, all income accruing or arising, whether directly or
indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise
in India. A non-resident could be taxed only if there was business connection between the
business carried on by a non-resident and some activity in the taxable territory which contributes
directly or indirectly to the earning of those profits or gains.43
(¶26.) Firstly, an entity is considered as a business connection under when it ‘habitually secures
orders in India, mainly or wholly for the non resident’44. Zeon’s liaison office is primarily
engaged in liaising with potential clients and also provides them with product presentations.45
Engagement with potential clients amount to negotiation and negotiation by a liaison comes
within the expression ‘business connection’.46
(¶27.) Secondly, it has been held47 that where there are several persons employed by a LO, it can
be safely assumed that the LO is directly contributing to the income of the enterprise. In the case
at hand, there are several employees of Zeon’s who are employed at the Indian LO. Therefore, it
is submitted that Zeon’s LO directly contributes to its income.
(¶28.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Zeon’s LO is a
permanent establishment under S. 9(1) of the I-T Act and hence the petitioner was required to
deduct the TDS under the head of business profits.

43
Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd., (1953) 23 ITR 101 (SC); CIT v R.D. Aggarwal & Co., (1965) AIR 1526.
44
Explanation 2(c) to Sec. 9(1), I-T Act, 1961.
45
Pg. 1, Moot Problem.
46
Gutal Trading In re, 278 ITR 643 (AAR).
47
M/s. Brown & Sharp INC v. DCIT, (2014) 160 TTJ (Delhi).
8|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

III. THE REOPENING AND REASSESSMENT ARE VALID AND IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW

(¶29.) The respondent submits that the reopening [A] and the reassessment [B] are valid and in
conformity with law and should be upheld.

A. The Reassessment is consonance with law

(¶30.) The respondent submits that the reopening of the assessment for the concerned AYs is
neither in violation of law [i] nor in contravention of the Central Board of Direct Taxes
(hereinafter ‘CBDT’) circular dated 29/05/2012 [ii].

i. Reassessment can be done for the concerned AYs

(¶31.) It is submitted that the assessing officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to
tax had escaped assessment. Additionally, the petitioner did not disclose fully and truly, all
material facts, regarding the assessment and thus the reassessment proceeding initiated under
S.147 of the I-T Act [a]. It is further submitted that the notice served under section 148 was valid
[b].

a. The assessing officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped
assessment under S. 147.
(¶32.) It is submitted that in order to initiate reassessment proceedings under S. 147 of the I-T
Act, for an assessment having been completed under S. 143(1) of the I-T Act, the condition
precedent is that the assessing officer should have reason to believe[1] that income chargeable to
tax has escaped assessment [2]. Further, the petitioner had not disclosed all material facts [3]
fully and truly [4]. Lastly, the assessment was rightly conducted beyond the period of four years
[5].

1. The assessing officer had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment
with the material on hand.

9|Page
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶33.) It is submitted that in S. 147 of the IT Act as substituted by the Direct Tax Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1987, the phrase ‘reason to believe’ has a very wide connotation.48 The
limitation placed by the Act is that the reopening cannot be done on wholly vague, indefinite,
far-fetched or remote information.49 Law mandates an application of mind by the assessing
officer to such material,50 and a mere change in opinion about old material does not give
jurisdiction to reassess.51 Moreover in numerous cases decided by various Courts, wherein the
assessing officer had exempted income from charge due to a certain view taken by him, was
subsequently allowed to reassess.52
(¶34.) In the case at hand, the position regarding “all or any rights”53, with respect to royalty
was very ambiguous54 during the concerned AYs. The position was subsequently clarified by the
legislature by way of an amendment55 through the Finance Act, 2012. The memorandum to the
Finance Bill, 2012 abundantly clarifies that the aforementioned amendment was brought about to
settle the position regarding the use of computer software and to put the confusion created by
judicial decisions to rest. It is therefore submitted that the amendment and the intent behind the
same establishes sufficient reason for belief for the assessing officer.

2. The income has escaped assessment

(¶35.) It is submitted that taxable income escaped assessment under the head “income
chargeable to tax that has been under-assessed” as given in explanation 2(c)(i) to S.147 of the IT
Act. The expression ‘escaped assessment’ has been elaborately explained by explanation 2 to
S.147 of the IT Act.
(¶36.) It is submitted that S.147 of the IT Act is applicable if some income assessable for the
assessment year in question has escaped assessment wholly or in part.56 In the case at hand,

48
Nirmalkumar Ashok Kumar v Gopi, (1991) 187 ITR 329 (Bom); Sir Bansilal and Co. v Prabhu Dayal, ITO (1990)
185 ITR 287 (Bom).
49
ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO v Mahadeo Lal Tulsyan (1978) 111 ITR 25 (Cal).
50
ITO v. Ramnarain Bhojnagarwalla, (1976) 103 ITR 797 (SC).
51
Birla VXL Ltd. v. ACIT, (1996) 217 ITR 1 (Guj).
52
Kumar Kamal Singh (Maharaj) v. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 1 (SC); Bikram Kishore (Maharaja) v. Province of Assam,
(1949) 17 ITR 220 (Cal); Bansilal Abirchand Firm (RB) v. CIT, (1964) 53 ITR 536 (Bom); CIT v. Bansilal
Abirchand Firm (RB), (1968) 70 ITR 220 (Cal).
53
Income Tax Act, 1961, S.9(1)(vi).
54
Para 16, Arguments Advanced.
55
Explanation 4 to Income Tax Act, 1961, Sec. 9(1)(vi).
56
Hari Babu v. CIT, (1974) 96 ITR 118 (All).
10 | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

royalty is taxable income within the meaning of the I-T Act57, and it had escaped assessment
wholly as the petitioner failed to deduct TDS under S.194J of the I-T Act at the time of making
payments.58 It is further submitted that income can also be held to escape assessment as a result
of the lack of vigilance of the IT officer, or due to inadvertence, negligence or the perfunctory
performance of his duties without due care and caution.59 Therefore in the case at hand, the
assessing officer’s omission, if any in the concerned AYs has no bearing on the income that has
escaped assessment.
(¶37.) Therefore, it is submitted that the assessing officer had reason to believe that income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the AY 2005-06 which was assessed under Sec.
143(1) of the IT Act.

3. The assessee had not disclosed all material facts

(¶38.) It is submitted that the requirement of disclosing material facts under S.147 of the IT Act
is a pre-requisite for filing of returns by the assessee under S.139 of the I-T Act or under a
response to a notice under S.142(1) or S.148 of the I-T Act60. The Supreme Court has laid down
that it is the duty of the assessee company to disclose all the facts which have a bearing on the
ongoing assessment.61
(¶39.) In the present case, the petitioner had not disclosed the true nature of the agreement and
the fact that it amounted to a transfer of rights in the copyright.62 This fact was material so as to
find the tax liability under the head of royalty, under S. 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act. Therefore, it is
submitted that the non-disclosure of this fact amounts to a non-disclosure of material facts by the
assessee.

4. The assessee had not disclosed all facts fully and truly.
(¶40.) It is submitted that the phrase “omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material
facts” essentially means “non-disclosure”.63 Disclosure in indirect and incidental manner cannot

57 Para 24, Arguments Advanced.

58
Page 1, Moot Problem.
59
Palaniswami (P) v. CIT, (1977) 106 ITR 811 (Mad); Panchugurumurthy v. CIT, (1995) 211 ITR 51 (Mad).
60
KANGA & PALKHIVALA’S, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INCOME TAX (10 ed. 2014); SAMPATH IYENGAR, LAW OF
INCOME TAX 441 (12 ed. 2012).
61
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC).
62
Para 19, Arguments Advanced.
63
Citibank N.A. v. Ojha (S.K.),(2002) 257 ITR 663 (Bom); India Steam Co. Ltd. v. JCIT, (2005) 275 ITR (Cal).
11 | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

absolve the assessee of his duty to disclose truly and fully.64 The implication of ‘disclose’ as
mentioned in the statute65, is always in relation to facts which the assessee is aware of66 and any
violation of disclosure happens when the assessee withholds material information known to him
at the relevant time from the assessing officer67.
(¶41.) In the present case, the petitioner failed to deduct TDS68 even when the consideration
under the agreement amounted to royalty69. Thus it amounts to a misrepresentation by the
petitioner regarding the nature of the consideration. Moreover, it also amounts topassive
concealment of the true nature of the transaction. Additionally mere production of documents by
the petitioner under S. 143(3) of the I-T Act70 does not amount to disclosure within explanation 1
to S. 147 of the I-T Act. It is submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed fully and truly all
material facts, thereby necessitating the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under S. 147
of the I-T Act with respect to the AYs 2003-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09.

5. The assessment was rightly conducted beyond the period of four years
(¶42.) It is submitted that S. 147 of the I-T Act provides that reassessment cannot be conducted
beyond the expiry of four years of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a fault in the part
of the assessee in disclosing material information fully and truly71. As the Respondents have
established, that the assessee defaulted in disclosing material information fully and truly to the
assessing officer, the limitation period of four years therefore would not be applicable in the
present facts of the case.

b. The notice served under section 148 was valid

64
Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); Shahdara Saharanpur Light Railway Co Ltd v. CIT,
(1994) 208 ITR 882 (Cal).
65
Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 147.
66 Canara Sales Corpn Ltd v. CIT, (1989) 176 ITR 340 (Kar).
67
Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu v. ITO, (1986) 160 ITR 526 (P&H); CIT v. Balvantrai S Jain, (1969) 72 ITR 59 (Bom);
ITO v. Calcutta Chromotype Pvt Ltd, (1974) 97 ITR 55; Also see SAMPATH IYENGAR, LAW OF INCOME TAX 567 (12
ed. 2012).
68
Page 1, Moot Problem.
69
Para 18, Arguments Advanced.
70
Page 3, Moot Problem.
71
Proviso 2, S. 147, Income Tax Act, 1961.
12 | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶43.) The validity of the notice72 is a condition precedent to the initiation of any proceeding
under S.147 of the IT Act73. It is submitted that the notice sent to the petitioners under S.148 of
the IT Act is not invalid on grounds of being vague [1] and on having been served on the expiry
of the limitation period [2].

1. The notice served was not vague

(¶44.) It is submitted that the subject matter of the reassessments of all the AYs for which the
notice was sent was the same, that is, royalty. Therefore, the notice cannot be held infructuous as
a single notice could sufficiently fulfil the pre-requisites of S. 148 of the I-T Act. Additionally,
the requirement of sending a notice is only procedural in nature and has been held to be a
machinery section.74 The notice sent by the assessing officer fulfilled the requirement of bringing
to the attention of the petitioners the grounds under which reassessment was going to be held.75
Therefore, it is submitted that the notice served was not vague in any manner whatsoever.

2. The limitation period of a notice is not addressed by the High Court

(¶45.) It is submitted that with respect to notice issued under S. 148 of the I-T Act, the Court
will not address the question of limitation, as it can be raised only before the necessary tax
authorities.76 The petitioner directly approached the High Court by filing a writ petition upon the
receipt of the notice which was in violation of the prescribed statutory procedure77. The High
Court, by way of its writ jurisdiction would not address matters related to factual
inconsistencies78 and therefore it is submitted that the matter related to limitation period of the
notice should be dismissed.

ii. The Reopening is not in contravention with the CBDT circular dated 29/05/2012.

72
SAMPATH IYENGAR, LAW OF INCOME TAX (12 ed. 2012), page 10203; KANGA & PALKHIVALA’S, THE LAW AND
PRACTICE OF INCOME TAX (10 ed. 2014) page 2203-04; Also see Narayan v. ITO, 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Pratap,
41 ITR 421 (SC); CIT v. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC).
73
CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi, (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Mintu Kalita, (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau);
Sasikumar (PN) v. CIT, (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker).
74
CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442 (PC); Sales Tax Officer v. Uttareswari Rice Mills, (1973) 89 ITR
6 (SC).
75
PAGE 3, Moot Problem.
76
Chandra Lakshmi Tempered Glass Co Pvt Ltd v. ACIT, Supra note 10; Chandi Ram v. ITO, Supra note 9.
77
Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 246; Also see GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors., 259 ITR
19 (SC).
78
Sahib Ram Giri v. ITO, Supra note 4; Precot Mills Ltd. v. CIT 273 ITR 347; Dinesh Chand Jain v. Dy CIT, Supra
note 4.
13 | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

(¶46.) The respondent submit that the circular issued by the CBDT79 abundantly clarifies that
assessments which have been completed and have thus attained finality under S. 143(3) of the I-
T Act prior to April 1, 2012 shall not be reopened under S. 147 of the I-T Act. It has been
reiterated by the Courts that circulars or general directions issued by the CBDT would be binding
under S. 119 of the I-T Act on all officers and persons employed, in the execution of the I-T
Act.80 It is further submitted that the principles regarding finality of an assessment state that an
assessee is entitled not to be subjected to reassessment unless the statute permits reassessment to
be carried out.81Since in the present case the reassessment proceedings under S. 147 of the I-T
Act have been proved, the assessments cannot be said to have attained finality, thereby, the
applicability of the CBDT circular is pre-empted. It is therefore submitted that the reassessment
is not in contravention of the CBDT letter dated 29/05/2012.

B. The reassessment is not bad in law

(¶47.) The petitioner’s remedy in cases of wrong reassessment, if any is by way of appeal82 as
provided by the Act.83 When the AO acts within his jurisdiction, the court cannot interfere by a
writ of prohibition84 or certiorari85 merely because it is erroneous on points of fact or law86. In
this case, the AO acted within his jurisdiction under S. 14787. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
bring a writ with regards to a wrong reassessment.
(¶48.) In any case, application of a wrong provision of the I-T Act or erroneous application of
same will amount to mistake apparent on the face of record.88 The petitioner has alternative

79
No. F. No. 500/111/12009-FTD-1(Pt.) dated 29/05/2012.
80
ITO v. Manoharlal Kothari, 236 ITR 257; Grindlays Bank v. CIT, 201 ITR 148; CIT v. Ankitesh P. Ltd., 340 ITR
14.
81
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC); Merchant v. CED, (1989) 177 ITR 490 (SC);
Vipan Khanna v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H); Kapoor Bros. v. Union of India, (2001) 247 ITR 324 (Pat).
82
KANGA & PALKHIVALA’S, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INCOME TAX (10 ED. 2014)., VOL. II, PG. 2199.
83
Hyderabad Allwyn v. ITO, 46 ITR 988; Gyaniram v. ITO, 47 ITR 472.
84
Raymond Woollen Mills v. CIT, 236 ITR 34 (SC); Mulchand v. ITO, 252 ITR 758; Geo Miller v. DCIT, 254 ITR
620; Jaganath Mishra v. CIT, 253 ITR 282; Pramod Kumar v. ITO, 186 ITR 637; Rekhi v. ITO, 18 ITR 618; Ashoka
v. UOI, 29 ITR 507; President Talkies v. ITO, 25 ITR 447; Radhakant v. Johri, 39 ITR 182; Kunjannamma v. ITO,
42 ITR 640.
85
ACIT v. Banswara Syntex, 272 ITR 642; Ajai Verma v. CIT, 304 ITR 30; Ramballabh Gupta v. ACIT, 288 ITR
283; Krishna Gupta v. CIT, 231 ITR 628.
86
Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO, 269 ITR 272; Chattanatha v. ITO , 38 ITR 325; Chinnaswami v. ITO, 61 ITR
400.
87
Para 37, Arguments Advanced.
88
CIT v. Peirce Leslie & Co. Ltd., (1997) 227 ITR 759 (Mad).
14 | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

remedies against mistake under S. 154(2)(b) by way of rectification89 and under S. 246(1)(b) by
way of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). It is only when the authority does not
dispose of a rectification application, wrongly rejects it90 or is time barred that a writ may be
issued compelling him to do so.91 Therefore, it is submitted that the writ regarding erroneous
reassessment should be quashed as the petitioner did not exhaust his alternative remedies under S.
154(2)(b) and S. 246(1)(b).

IV. THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CHARGED AS AN ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT

(¶49.) Withholding taxes like TDS require that when a person is responsible for paying any sum,
he withholds applicable taxes as an agent of the Government and is indeed recovering tax on
behalf of the Government.92 It is submitted that the petitioner has rightly been charged as an
assessee-in-default under S. 201 of the I-T Act as he was under an obligation to deduct sums
under S. 194J.
(¶50.) Under S. 201, if the payer ‘does not deduct the tax’, then he would be deemed to be an
assessee-in-default in respect of the tax.93 In the case at hand, the consideration under the license
agreement amounted to royalty even in the pre-2012 amendment scenario.94 The maxim lex non
cogit ad impossiblia upheld by the apex court95 is not applicable here. Therefore, it is submitted
that the assessee was required to deduct sums under S. 201.
(¶51.) Moreover, the defense of bona fide reason is available only when the assessee makes a
fair and honest estimate of the taxable income.96 The deduction was not impossible as the
petitioner was aware of the nature of the agreement and the nature of the income arising therein.
Therefore, the petitioner had no bona fide reason to believe that tax was not deductible under S.
194J of the I-T Act.
(¶52.) Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has been rightly charged as an assessee-in-
default.

89
CIT v. McLeod & Co. Ltd., (1982) 134 ITR 674 (Cal).
90
Parshuram v. Trivedi 100, ITR 581; VK Const v. CIT, 215 ITR 26; Indian Herbs v. DCIT, 212 ITR 425.
91 Rajamma v. ITO, 152 ITR 657; Burmah Oil v. ITO, 165 ITR 264.
92 119 BMR ADVISORS, MANAGING TAX DISPUTES IN INDIA, (1st Ed. 2013).
93
CIT v. Ranoli Investment, 235 ITR 433; Bennett Coleman v Damle, 157 ITR 812.
94
Para 19, Arguments Advanced.
95
Krishnaswamy S. Pd v Union of India (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC).
96
Gwalior Rayon v. CIT, 140 ITR 832; CIT v. Nestle India, 243 ITR 435; ITO v. Gujarat Narmada, 247 ITR 305.
15 | P a g e

[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]

 [PRAYER]

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:
1. That, the writ filed is not maintainable in the court of law.
2. That, the consideration given under the agreement is royalty.
3. That, the Amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) of I-T Act is constitutional.
4. That, the reopening under S. 147 of I-T Act is not bad in law.
5. That, the reassessment cannot be challenged in the High Court.
6. That, the petitioner is an assessee-in-default.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel for Respondent)

xiii | P a g e
[MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT]