S. 195 would not apply to payments made to a resident holding power of attorney from non-residents.

Five individuals based in the UK owned land in
India as co-owners. The non-resident co-owners had issued a power of attorney in
respect of the land in favour of one PS who was a resident in terms of the
Income-tax Act. PS was vested with the rights to sell the land as well as
receive the payment. The appellant purchased the land and paid the consideration
to PS.

In his order, the AO noted that the appellant had
not furnished any explanation for non-deduction of tax from payment made to PS,
who acted as representative of non-residents. The AO also noted that the
appellant had not applied u/s.195(2) of the Income-tax Act and hence, relying on
the Supreme Court’s decision in Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. v. CIT,
(1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC), he concluded that the appellant had made payment to
non-resident without deducting tax, which he was required to deduct u/s.195 of
the Income-tax Act. As the appellant had not so deducted the tax, he was an
assessee in default u/s.201 and u/s.201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The AO, thus,
raised demand of tax and interest on the appellant. In appeal, the CIT(A)
concluded that as the sale deeds were executed by PS on behalf of non-residents,
and as PS was acting on behalf of non-residents, he received the money on their
behalf. Hence, the
payment was to be considered as payment to non-residents.

The Tribunal observed that though the payment was
made for purchase of land which belonged to non-residents, rights therein were
assigned unequivocally to PS. PS was not merely acting as an agent of the
non-residents to receive money, but as a person who had the right to alienate
the land by the virtue of rights vested in him by the power of attorneys signed
by the co-owners. The payment was not made to PS as a representative nominated
by non-residents. The Tribunal noted the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Narsee Nagsee & Co. v. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 134 (Bom.) to the effect that if the
non-resident nominates a particular agent to whom
payment is to be made and pursuant to that direction, a taxpayer makes payment
to that nominee-agent, S. 195 would apply. However, the facts in case of the
appellant were materially different as the rights in the land were assigned to
PS and thus, PS was not merely acting as agent of non-residents to receive money
by virtue of rights vested in him by co-owners. The Tribunal further observed
that in Tecumesh Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2007) 13 SOT 489 (Hyd.), it was
held that when a payment is made to resident even on behalf of non-residents, S.
195 does not apply.

The Tribunal held that S. 195 would not apply when
the appellant made the payment to the power of attorney holder, but it would
apply when payment is made to non-residents. Hence, it will come into play only
when PS makes the payment to the actual owners of the land.