By Ashok Dhere, Jagdish D. Shah, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
New Page 2
13 DCIT v.
Mr. Erick Moroux C/o. Air France and Others
(2008) (TIOL 145 ITAT Del.)
S. 9(1)(ii) of the Act
A.Y. : 2001-02. Dated : 15-2-2008
Issues :
l
Salary income of an expatriate who partly rendered services in India and
partly outside India would not be chargeable to tax in India in respect of
proportionate period for which services are performed outside India.
l
Contribution towards social securities and other funds in terms of labour law
regulations in France represents diversion of salary at source and is not
taxable in India.
Facts :
The assessee, an employee of Air France, was posted in India
since August 2000. For the year under reference, he was R but NOR. In terms of
his employment agreement, apart from rendering services in India, the assessee
was also required to supervise operations in France as well as in South Asia.
The employment agreement itself contemplated that about 20% of the time of the
assessee would be for operations outside India.
For the year under reference, the assessee was outside India
for a period of 19 days. The assessee claimed that the salary attributable to
the period for which he rendered services outside India was not taxable in
India.
The Department rejected the claim primarily on the ground
that the assessee provided no evidence of the service that he rendered while
being outside India. The Department also relied on the Explanation to S.
9(1)(ii) inserted with effect from A.Y. 2000-01 to contend that the salary for
period outside India was salary for leave/rest period and hence taxable in terms
of amended S. 9(1)(ii).
The second controversy was about deduction/exclusion in
respect of contributions made towards various schemes in France. The assessee
had made mandatory contributions towards various social security schemes for
health insurance, for retirement scheme, for pension scheme, insurance coverage
for long illness and for widowhood, etc. in France. These amounts were claimed
to be non-chargeable on the ground that the same represented diversion of income
at source.
The Department rejected the contention by holding that the
payments were in the nature of application akin to the payment of provident fund
or some such investment schemes applicable in India.
Held :
l
The ITAT accepted the assessee’s contention that salary attributable to
service outside India was not taxable in India. The ITAT relied on Special
Bench decision in the case Air France viz. J. Calle and Others, (ITA
5921 to 5929/Del). In the view of ITAT, the fact that the employment contract
mandated the assessee to oversee operations outside India coupled with the
assessee’s actual presence outside India did amply support the claim of the
assessee.
The Tribunal also held that the amended explanation to S.
9(1)(ii) was not applicable, as the period of absence from India was neither
rest period, nor leave period.
The ITAT relied on earlier decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in
the case of Gallotti Raoul v. ACIT, (1997) (61 ITD 453) to hold that
since there was no discretion available to the assessee with regard to statutory
deduction, such contribution was a diversion of income by overriding title and
cannot be brought to tax.
The Tribunal noted the following observations from the
decision of Galloti Raoul (supra) and concurred with them.
“The concept of such compulsory contribution to social
security is not prevalent in India. Unlike the schemes in India which are saving
schemes, the scheme of social security is not a saving scheme, but a scheme to
protect the French nationals from various calamities. From this point of view,
the amount that was contributed to the social security organisation was a
diversion of income by overriding title at the stage of earning point itself.
The affiliation being compulsory, making the social security organisation an
earning partner alongside of the assessee i.e., assessee earned not only
for himself, but also for the social security organisation. The assessee had no
right over it at all and thereby no domain on it. Hence the social security
charges were to be deducted from the salary income as a prior charge by
overriding title and it would be only the net salary after such deduction that
should be treated as gross salary within the meaning of S. 16.”
