TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upported by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012 - i.e. before the draft assessment order was made in respect of AY 2010-11. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the restricted remand to the AO was not justified. At the same time, this Court is not persuaded to the submissions of the revenue that since the assessee considered the entirety of circumstance for the other years in its order dated 28.11.2014 which led to the final assessment order dated 4.12.2014, which is in turn is the subject matter of the assessee’s appeal before the ITAT, the latter course is the most appropriate one. This is because the ITAT’s impugned order in this case followed by the DRP was cryptic in its order and had nothing to say in respect of draft a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to tax. The AO, for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 considered the scope and merits of three agreements. Reassessment notice was issued for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 on 26.3.2013. Subsequently, on 28.3.2013 draft assessment orders were made by the AO in respect of the pending assessment, i.e. AY 2010-11. The objections were filed before the DRP which made its directions on 30.10.2013. The final assessment order was framed by the AO for AY 2010-11 on 23.12.2013. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal, being ITA No.344/Del./2014. During the pendency of that appeal, on 26.2.2014 draft assessment orders were made by the AO in respect of AY 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. The assessee objected to these draft assessments before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged, but after noticing in para 15 that the decision of the DRP was cryptic, directed a remand to the AO, who virtually would be re-examining the matter. It is contended that in these circumstances considering that the effect of all contracts is before the ITAT, this Court should direct the matter to be considered and decided by the ITAT rather than AO. Counsel for the revenue urged that the assessee s submissions do not merit acceptance. It was argued that since the DRP had already exercised powers under Section 263 and even the final order was made based upon the revisional order- which is now before the ITAT, this Court should not restrict the scope of the impugned order and seek recourse to a procedure unknown to law, i.e. remitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to confine the scrutiny to a certain subject matter. Finally the assessment order was made after taking into account the order of the DRP which was naturally determined in turn by the reference in the draft assessment order. Thereafter, the DRP issued notices under Section 263 and made his final order on 29.8.2014. Even at this stage, the DRP did not deem it expedient to enlarge the scope of the scrutiny for AY 2010-11. The DRP s determination in these circumstances, concerning the AY 2010-11, made earlier on 30.10.2013, stood. It is a matter of record that the revenue did not choose to either reopen the assessment in any manner nor call into question the decision of the DRP in terms of Section 253(2A) which enables revenue to approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
