Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (10) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 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 Princip .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tiating proceedings / assuming jurisdiction / exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order passed under Section 143 ( 3 ) read with Section 147 of the Act . 2 . The learned CIT erred in holding that the assessment order dated 28 March 2013 ( erroneously mentioned by the learned CIT as 29 November 2012 ) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in so far as the genuineness of the source of share application money credited in the books of accounts is concerned . 3 . The learned CIT failed to appreciate that Section 68 of the Act has no application to facts of the case at hand . 4 . The learned CIT erred in holding that ingredients of Section 68 of the Act remained unproved in the facts and circumstances of the case . 5 . The learned CIT erred in holding that the assessment order was passed in a summary manner without considering the relevant aspects, details, making proper enquires and without any application of mind . The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and source of the transaction with reference to increase in share capital during the year under consideration. It was further observed by the A.O that though the assessee had increased its Reserves and Surplus during the year under consideration by an amount of 179,79,71,200/-, however, no evidence was filed on record which could enable the A.O to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction with reference to the increase in the Reserves and Surplus during the year under consideration. It was further gathered by the A.O that though the assessee had during the year under consideration increased its Current liabilities from ₹ 42,40,78,321/- to ₹ 264,42,29,879/-, however, the assessee had failed to come forth with a full and true disclosure in respect of the nature, mode and source of the current liabilities amounting to ₹ 264,42,29,879/-. The A.O inter alia for the said reasons, holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, therefore, reopened the its case under Sec. 147 of the Act . 4. That a perusal of the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O for reopening the case of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ched by the accused which had resulted in loss to the public exchequer. The A.O deliberating on the facts before him, observed that in furtherance of the Hon ble Supreme Court monitored investigation, in or about August 2011, the CIT-V, Mumbai had received a secret/confidential communication containing factual report from the Directorate of Income-Tax investigations, New Delhi, on the basis of investigations carried out by the said directorate, naming the petitioner as being involved in the transactions having tax implications, which were required to be verified by the assessing officers by carrying out further verifications/ investigations by initiating necessary action, as deemed fit under the Income Tax Act. It was thus stated by the A.O that in the background of the aforesaid development and information obtained there from, and in order to assist in the Hon ble Supreme Court monitored investigations, a Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. 6. Be that as it may, the primary issue for reopening of the case of the assessee was to deliberate on the nature, mode and source of the amount involved in the transaction of ₹ 700 crores between the assessee and Loop Telecom L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amount was paid out of funds received from Essar Communications Holdings Ltd . , Mauritius as share application money . Copy of bank statement evidencing the payment of Rs . 700 crores to LTL and source of such funding is enclosed as Annexure 3 . The assessee received interest of Rs . 22 . 56 crores on the above amount which was accounted in AY : 2009 - 10 . As the assessee had received the funds from ECHL as share application money towards subscription of shares, no interest was payable . 7. The A.O deliberating on the aforesaid reply of the assessee, observed that the assessee had advanced a sum of ₹ 700 crores to Loop Telecom Limited in order to secure a business deal entered into with the said company for providing passive Infrastructure facility and maintenance services in all the 21 circles allotted to it. The A.O while enquiring into the source of the Share application money, as per the information provided by the assessee, resorted to getting the same verified by making a reference to the Mauritius Revenue Authorities through the Foreign Tax and Tax Research (for short FT TR ) division of the CBDT, under the provisions of the relevant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the aforesaid amount of ₹ 700 crore. The A.O after making certain other additions reassessed the total loss of the assessee at ₹ 12,98,66,740/-, vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated. 28.03.2013. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax-8-Mumbai (for short CIT ), after the culmination of the aforesaid reassessment proceedings by the A.O vide his order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 28.03.2013, called for the records of the assessee. The CIT after deliberating on the records of the assessee, therein being of the view that the reassessment order passed by the A.O was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, thus, vide his Show Cause Notice (for short SCN ), dated 09.09.2014, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the same may not be revised under Sec. 263 of the Act . The reason seeking for revision of the reassessment order by the CIT, to the extent the same survives and had been assailed before us, pertains to the transaction involving verification of the source of payment of an amount of ₹ 700 crores by the assessee to Loop Telecom Limited, was on the following grounds: (i) The amount of ₹ 726 crores which was clai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olding company of ECHL, directly to the assessee. It was further observed by the CIT that even 85,00,000/-US dollars received by the assessee from ECHL was not belonging to ECHL, but was claimed to be given by EGL to ECHL. (v) That it was observed by the CIT that there was no information as to how the following money had been received by the assessee: S . No . Amount disbursed Date of disbursement Nature of investment 1. USD 6918904 13.09.2006 Investment in equity shares. 2. USD 5479985 04.10.2006 Investment in equity shares. 3. USD 3408800 28.02.2007 Investment in equity shares. 4. USD 70409257 09.01.2008 Investment in equity shares.(out of USD 100,000,000 remitted, shares for USD 70,409,257 were allotted and the balance money was refunded by ETIPL. (vi) That neither the source of receipt of share application money rece .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re furnished with the A.O during the course of the reassessment proceedings, which after deliberations and necessary verifications on his part, was accepted by him. The assessee further submitted that as per the mandate of Sec. 68, now when the first and the immediate source of the cash credits, i.e share application money received by it was explained to the satisfaction of the A.O during the course of the reassessment proceedings, therefore, it could not be called upon to explain the source of sources of the share application money received by it. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions the assessee had tried to impress upon the CIT that now when the onus cast upon it in respect of the source of the share application money was discharged to the satisfaction of the A.O in terms of the mandate of Sec. 68, therefore, the reassessment order passed by the A.O on the said count could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 12. That in the meantime the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was transferred from the CIT-8, Mumbai to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai (for short Principal CIT). The Principal CIT after delibe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... IT that as per the information received from Mauritius Revenue Authorities, the total disbursement made by ECHL was of USD 17,12,16,946 from 13.09.2006 to 10.01.2008, therefore, it was beyond comprehension as to how the same, as accepted by the A.O, explained the alleged investment of USD 185 million from the said source. (iv) That though the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities referred to remittance of part payment of the investment made by ECHL by its parent company viz. EGL, which is stated to have been transferred through American Express Bank Ltd., however, no such bank account statement as claimed in the report was found enclosed alongwith the aforesaid information so received. (v) That though it was claimed that there was direct transfer of funds by EGL on behalf of ECHL out of share application money receivable by ECHL from EGL, but however, neither the details as regards the same were made available on the record by the assessee during the course of the reassessment proceedings, nor were enquired into by the A.O. 13. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts it was observed by the Principal CIT that as the A.O had not examined the inform .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed for by him from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities. (ii) the A.O had not made 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, inasmuch as out of USD 185 million, the assessee itself for the first time during the revision proceedings had admitted that a sum of USD 100 million was received directly from EGFL (allegedly claimed to be on behalf of EHCL), but no further enquiries to ascertain the veracity of the said claim was ever made by the A.O. 15. The Principal CIT on the basis of his aforesaid observations concluded that as the A.O had failed to make proper enquiries and investigations before accepting the claim of the assessee as regards the source of the cash credits in its books of account, therefore, the reassessment order passed by the A.O without proper application of mind, rendered the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, in the backdrop of his aforesaid conviction, the Principal CIT set aside the reassessment order with a direction to the A.O to pass a fresh order, as per law, after making necessary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee to Loop Telecom Limited, alongwith the details of subscription to share capital and securities premium were furnished with the A.O. The ld. A.R submitted that the purpose of advancing of an amount of ₹ 700 crores to Loop Telecom Limited, in the backdrop of the tripartite agreement between the assessee, Loop Telecom Limited and BPL Communications Ltd., was explained at length to the A.O. That as per the ld. A.R the complete details of the share application money received by the assessee from ECHL, a Mauritian company, alongwith the bank statement evidencing the identity of the share applicant, genuineness of the infusion of funds by way of share application money were furnished to the satisfaction of the A.O. The ld. A.R further took us through the reply dated. 15.12.2014 furnished by the assessee to the SCN issued by the CIT. It was averred by the ld. A.R that during the course of the revision proceedings it was submitted before the CIT that though the copies of the order sheets and letter dated 18.03.2013 received by the Foreign Tax Research Division, CBDT ( FTD ) from the Mauritius Tax Authorities were received by the assessee, however, the copies of certain other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urce of the infusion of USD 185 million was received by EGL through its overseas Essar entities, the ultimate source of which was the loan raised from Standard Chartered Bank (London). The ld. A.R had on the basis of his contentions tried to impress upon us, viz. (i). that the A.O had during the course of the reassessment proceedings called for all the relevant details in respect of the share application money, and only after being satisfied with the source of the share application money received by the assessee company, had accepted the same; and (ii). that even otherwise from a perusal of the letter dated. 18.03.2013 of the Mauritius Revenue Authority, and the Certificate dated. 11.11.2014 issued by Mauritius based Mazars, Chartered accountants, the complete details as regards the nature and source alongwith the genesis of the amount of USD 185 million received by the assessee as advance from ECHL for investment in equity shares of the assessee company was established beyond any scope of doubt. 17. The ld. A.R took us through the operative part of the order passed by the Principal CIT. The ld. A.R submitted that the concluded assessment of the assessee that was framed by the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion by the CIT or the Principal CIT, or a period of one year, whichever is less, was excluded for computing the period of limitation for framing of assessment by the A.O. The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid settled position of law, submitted that it was incorrect on the part of the Principal CIT to hold that the A.O apprehending barring of the time limitation contemplated under the law for passing of the reassessment order, had thus hushed through the proceedings. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as a matter of fact, the A.O after thorough application of mind to the facts and issue before him had framed the reassessment, being well aware that the time limitation for passing of the reassessment order already stood extended on a reference having been made by the Competent authority to the Mauritius Revenue Authority. The ld. A.R submitted that from a perusal of the report received on 28.03.2013 by the Joint Secretary (FT TR) Division, CBDT, New Delhi, from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, it could safely be gathered that the source of the share application money received by the assessee company from ECHL was found to be well in order. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed as a capital receipt. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements it was averred by the ld. A.R that now when it stood established beyond any scope of doubt, that the amount of USD 185 million was received by the assessee company from ECHL by way of share application money, therefore, in the light of the duly identified shareholder, viz. ECHL, the amount of share subscription received by the assessee company could not be assessed as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. 19. The ld. A.R further drew our attention to the first proviso of Sec. 68, as was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f 01.04.2013. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as per the first proviso, in case the A.O is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee company as regards the nature and source of the amount credited in its books of account (not being company in which public are substantially interested) by way of share application money, share capital or share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, would bring the assessee company within the sweep of Sec. 68 in respect of the said amount. It was averred by the ld. A.R that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies, and replies as regards the same were furnished by the assessee, then the same cannot be characterised as a case of non-application of mind by the A.O and the Commissioner of Income-tax would not be justified in dislodging the order passed by the A.O by invoking his jurisdiction under Sec. 263. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy [2006] 100 ITD 173 (Mum) (ii) Commissioner Of Income-tax v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (iii) Small Wonder Industries v. CIT-24, Mumbai (ITA No. 2464/Mum/2013; dated. 24.02.2017)(Mum) (iv) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). 21. That it was further submitted by the ld. A.R that for invoking of the jurisdiction for revision under Sec. 263, the CIT must be satisfied of the existence of the twin conditions contemplated in the said statutory provision, viz. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was further averred by the ld. A.R that revisional power cannot be invoked by the CIT for directing a fuller enquiry to find out if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the powers vested with him under Sec. 263 and had wrongly set aside the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3), for the following reasons : (i) The full details as regards the share application money was called for by the A.O and furnished by the assessee in the course of the original assessment framed under Sec. 143(3) on 29.12.2010, and the reassessment order passed under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated. 28.03.2013. (ii) That during the course of the reassessment proceedings exhaustive enquiries as regards the share application money received by the assessee from ECHL were made by the A.O, both in India and abroad. (iii) The report received by the Joint Secretary (FT TR), Division, CBDT, New Delhi, from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, was in no way adverse. The ld. A.R in support of his contention relied on the letter dated. 13.08.2014, addressed by the CIT-5, Mumbai to the CIT-8, Mumbai, while transferring the assessment folder to the latters office. The CIT-5, had observed that a perusal of the information received from Mauritius Revenue Authorities revealed that there was no adverse report in respect of receipt of share application money by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erification by the A.O, as regards the source of the amount claimed by the assessee to have been received as share application money from ECHL, therefore, had rightly set aside the reassessment order on the said issue, with a direction to the A.O to adjudicate the same afresh after making necessary verifications and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. D.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pardesh in the case of CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP).The ld. D.R submitted that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid and bereft of any force of law, therefore, the same may be dismissed. The ld. A.R rebutting the aforesaid contentions of the revenue, submitted that the reply furnished by the Mauritius Revenue Authority was in itself the conclusion of the enquiry, because the reopening of the proceedings was in itself started on the said basis. The ld. A.R while resting his case, averred that as the Principal CIT had wrongly exercised his revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the order passed by him under Sec. 263 may be vacated. 24. We have heard the authorised representativ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aforesaid contention of the ld. A.R. That at the first blush the contention advanced by the ld. A.R appeared to be very well reasoned and logical. We though find ourselves to be in agreement with the ld. A.R that now when the concluded assessment of the assessee was in itself reopened on the ground that the assessee had failed to come forth with the full and true disclosure of all the material facts in respect the nature, mode and source of the amount of ₹ 700 crores which was advanced by the assessee to Loop Telecom Limited (which was out of the amount of ₹ 726 crores claimed by the assessee to have been received in advance from ECHL for making investment in shares of the assessee company), then if not beyond comprehension, but the least expected, the A.O while framing the reassessment could not have lost sight of the said very basis on which the case of the assessee was reopened. Be that as it may, we cannot however remain oblivious of fact that mistakes do emerge from orders passed by the Assessing officers, thus rendering them amenable for revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Sec. 263, and those passed in the case of a reopened assessment are no excepti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ration, viz. Assessment Year 2008-09. But then, we find that neither the Principal CIT in his order passed under Sec. 263 had applied the first proviso of Sec. 68 to the case of the assessee, nor is it the case of the revenue before us. We find that the Principal CIT in his order passed under Sec. 263 had only looked into the basic scheme of Sec. 68, and in the backdrop of the facts emerging from the records before him, had observed that the assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions contemplated in the basic section itself. We find that the Principal CIT while deliberating on the records of the assessee in the course of the revision proceedings, had merely looked into the satisfaction of the basic conditions contemplated in the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 68, from the applicability of which the assessee can claim no escape. We find that the Principal CIT by referring to the settled position of law, had observed that the assessee was under a statutory obligation to have established the Nature and Source of the amount of USD 185 million as was credited in its books of account during the year, and was claimed by it to have been received as an advance from ECHL for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rious doubts and rather is the subject matter of the order passed by the Principal CIT. Be that as it may, we now take up the aforesaid legal proposition canvassed before us by the ld. A.R that where share application money is received by a company from alleged bogus shareholders, who had been identified, there such amount is though liable to be assessed in the hands of the shareholders, in accordance with law, however, the same cannot be regarded as the undisclosed income of the assessee company. We are of the considered view that after the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) and Stellar Investment Ltd (supra), the aforesaid issue is no more res integra and stands settled. We are of the considered view that as observed by us hereinabove, the claim of the assessee that the amount of USD 185 million was received by it as share application money from ECHL, is in itself the bone of contention between the assessee and the revenue. However, without prejudice to our aforesaid observation, we are of the considered view that even otherwise the said contention of the assessee raised before us is premature. We find that our indulgence in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry of the sources of source. However, the fact as to whether the Principal CIT in the present case had embarked into any such exercise of making an enquiry into the sources of the source from whom the amount of USD 185 million was received by the assessee, would emerge only after a careful deliberation of the facts of the case. We find that the assessee had averred before the Principal CIT that as the onus cast upon it to explain the source of the share application money had duly been explained to the satisfaction of the A.O in the course of the reassessment proceedings, therefore, in terms of the mandate of Sec. 68 the reassessment order passed by the A.O on the said count could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We are of the considered view that the correctness of the aforesaid claim of the assessee can be gathered on a perusal of the facts pertaining to receipt of USD 185 million, which as claimed by the assessee was received as advance for share application money from EHCL, for making of investment in the equity of the assessee company. We find that as claimed by the ld. A.R, the assessee had during the course of the reassessment proceeding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of 85,00,000/- US dollars received by the assessee from ECHL were not belonging to ECHL, but is stated in the report received from the Mauritian Revenue Authority to have been given by EGL to ECHL. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid sources of the amount of USD 185 million had emerged for the first time from the report of the Mauritius Revenue Authorities, which was received only as on 28.03.2013 by the Joint Secretary (FT TR), Division, CBDT, New Delhi, from the Mauritius Revenue Authority. We find that a bare perusal of the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities revealed that the source of funds of USD 185 million claimed by the assessee to have been received during the year under consideration as share application money from ECHL, apparently found its source from EGL, viz. (i). amount of USD 85,00,000 which was claimed to be received through the bank accounts of ECHL, was not belonging to ECHL but was claimed to be given by EGL to ECHL; and (ii). the balance amount of USD 100 million was directly remitted by EGL on 09.01.2008, as advance towards issue of shares on behalf of ECHL to the assessee company. We are of the considered view that in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lhi, from the Mauritius Revenue Authority. We find that the aforesaid information pertaining to the source of the amount of USD 185 million was never there before the A.O in the course of the reassessment proceedings, and as admitted by the Authorised representative of the assesses before the Principal CIT in the course of the revision proceedings, neither the A.O had during the course of the reassessment proceedings raised any specific queries as regards the alleged funds received from EGL, nor any such details were furnished by the assessee on its own with the A.O during the course of the reassessment proceedings. We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, now when the source of the amount of USD 185 million was neither furnished by the assessee before the A.O during the course of the reassessment proceedings, nor was verified by him on his own, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Principal CIT, therein directing the A.O to verify the source of the amount of USD 185 million received by the assessee. Before parting, we may further observe that the amount of USD 185 million which is claimed by the assessee to have been receive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... framed by the A.O vide his order under Sec. 143(3), dated. 29.12.2010, was reopened under Sec. 147, on the basis of information received from the DGIT(Inv), New Delhi, which revealed that the source of advances of ₹ 700 crores given by the assessee company to Loop Telecom Limited was not properly examined/verified by the A.O while framing the assessment. The Principal CIT observed, that as the primary issue which had weighed in the mind of the A.O while reopening the concluded assessment of the assessee was to verify the source of the amount of ₹ 700 crores advanced to Loop Telecom Limited, which as claimed by the assessee was from the amount of the share application money of ₹ 726 crores (USD 185 million) claimed by the assessee to have been received from ECHL, a Mauritius based company, therefore, the A.O in order to verify the international money trail and source of money, made a reference vide letter dated. 22.11.2012 to the Jt. Secretary, CBDT, New Delhi, (for short FT TR ), requesting that the information may be obtained from the revenue authorities in Mauritius, under the specific articles dealing with Exchange of Information as per the terms of the In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Authorities, as against the amount of USD 185 million claimed by the assessee to have been received from ECHL as share application money, only an amount of USD 85 million (amount given by EGL to ECHL) was received through the bank accounts of ECHL. We find that the Principal CIT deliberating on the information received from Mauritius Revenue Authorities, observed that the balance amount of USD 100 million (out of USD 185 million) was stated to have been paid directly on behalf of ECHL by the latters holding company, viz. EGL, directly to the assessee. The Principal CIT had further observed that though the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities referred to part payment of the investment made by ECHL by its parent company viz. EGL, which is stated to have been transferred through American Express Bank Ltd., but no such bank account statement, as claimed, was found enclosed alongwith the report of the Mauritius Revenue Authority. We further find that the Principal CIT had observed, that though it was claimed that there was direct transfer of funds by EGL on behalf of ECHL out of share application money receivable by ECHL from EGL, but however, as admitted by the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of USD 185 million credited in its books of account was the share application money received from ECHL, may thus be verified. We find that as the necessary information was not forthcoming, therefore, the A.O who had triggered the seeking of the aforesaid information from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities, being well aware of the fact that the said information was indispensably required to facilitate verification of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, therefore, issued a reminder on 05.03.2013 for obtaining the information. The Principal CIT observed that as the report from the Mauritius Revenue Authority was received on 28.03.2013, on which date itself the reassessment order under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3) was framed by the A.O, therefore, the A.O by not waiting for the requisite details, had thus, without examining and verifying the report of the Mauritius Revenue Authority, passed the reassessment order. We are of the considered view that now when the assessee in the course of the reassessment proceedings had submitted before the A.O that the amount of USD 185 million was received by it as share application money from ECHL, a Mauritius based company, therefore, the A.O after delib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h conduct of the A.O to frame the reassessment order without waiting for, examining and verifying the report of the Mauritius Revenue Authority, which we find was indispensably required by him till 05.03.2013 was however abruptly aborted, thus can only be characterised by us as an order passed by him without making any verification as regards the nature and source of the amount of USD 185 million which was claimed by the assessee as having been received as share application money from ECHL. We may further observe that there is nothing available on record which could persuade us to conclude that some information/material independent of the seeking of the information from the Mauritius Revenue Authority was gathered by the A.O, which thus rendered the very requirement of waiting for the report from Mauritius Revenue Authority, purposeless. We thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts are of the considered view that the failure on the part of the A.O to examine the report received from the Mauritius Revenue Authority was clearly a case of non- application of mind by the A.O, who can safely be concluded to have accepted without making any verification the claim of the assessee that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. We are of the considered view that 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates