9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a pending proceeding. 2. The facts to the extent they are necessary are that the petitioner, a Non-Resident Corporation had filed its return for AY 2012-13. It applied for an advance ruling under Section 245R of the Act, to the Advance Ruling Authority [hereafter "the Ruling Authority"], on 21.11.2013. When the application came up for consideration, the Ruling Authority rejected it citing the reason that the issue was "pending" - thereby invoking proviso to Article 245R(2). The Ruling Authority's order is as follows: "PROCEEDINGS There is a request for adjournment on the ground of unavailability of the counsel. However, the Department takes an objection to this request and points out that in this matter there is already a notice issued u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AO) was obliged under the scrutiny guidelines applicable under that provision to issue notice to all assesses who had reported income on international transactions exceeding `15 crores. This, it was submitted, was the point of distinction between the previous authorities of the Court. 5. Hyosung (supra) was noticed in the subsequent ruling in L.S. Cable (supra) where it was held as follows: "13. This Court in Hyosung Corporation v. The Authority for Advance Rulings (supra) held that mere issuance of a notice under Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act which merely stated that the AO would like some further information on certain points in connection with the return that was filed would not result in attracting the bar under clause (i) of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question raised therein was already the subject matter of proceedings before the income tax authorities that the bar in terms of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act would apply. If such application is not already pending on the date of the application, and is the subject matter of a notice issued thereafter by the income tax authority, it cannot be said that such question is "already pending before such income tax authority‟. What is relevant is not the date of consideration of the application by the AAR but the date of filing of such application before the AAR." 15. For the above reasons, the impugned order dated 3rd August 2015 of the AAR rejecting the Petitioner's four applications is unsustainable in law. The mere issuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
