Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 390 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - no source of the amount of USD 185 million - reopening of assessment initiated by AO - CIT initiating proceedings/ assuming jurisdiction/ exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 and setting aside the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 - Held that:- As deliberated on the report received from the Mauritius Revenue Authority and find ourselves to be in agreement with the Principal CIT, that independent of the aforesaid fact of non-verification of the report received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities by the A.O, even otherwise the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities was neither complete, nor explained the source and creditworthiness of the persons giving the share application money. The certificate of Mazar, Chartered accountants, Mauritius, to which our attention was drawn by the ld. A.R, in the backdrop of the fact that the latter had categorically stated as not being the Chartered accountant of EGL, as well as in the backdrop of the disclaimer forming part of his certificate, thus does not inspire much confidence and cannot be accepted without making necessary verifications of the facts mentioned therein. We are also not impressed by the contention of the ld. A.R that the CIT-5, Mumbai while transferring the case records of the assessee to the CIT-8, Mumbai, had in his letter dated 13.08.2014 advised that as no adverse report was received from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, therefore, there was no requirement of reopening the case of the assessee for the year under consideration and the preceding years. As per the mandate of Sec. 263, the requirement contemplated under the said statutory provision is the satisfaction of the CIT in whose revisional jurisdiction the case of the assessee falls, therefore, the view or advise of the CIT-5, Mumbai, who was rendered functus officio as regards the case of the assessee, thus in the present case was not binding on the CIT-8, Mumbai, to whom the case of the assessee was transferred. We thus are of the considered view that the advice of the CIT-5, Mumbai did not have any bearing on the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT-8, Mumbai or the passing of the order of revision u/s 263 by the Principal CIT-9, Mumbai as regards revising of the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3). We thus decline to accept the aforesaid contention so raised before us. Principal CIT had rightly revised the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, being of the view that the A.O had completed the reassessment without making proper enquiries with regard to the preliminary or basic facts about the source of the share application money found credited in the books of account of the assessee, as well as not considering the information which was called for by him from the Mauritius Tax Authorities. Principal CIT, remaining well within his jurisdiction had set aside the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, with a direction to adjudicate afresh the issue as regards the amount of USD 185 million, claimed to have been received by the assessee as share application money from ECHL, after making necessary verifications and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations uphold the order passed by the Principal CIT-9 under Sec. 263 of the ‘Act’. - Decided against assessee.
|