9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is a remission of liability to the extent of Rs. 43 Crores in favour of assessee company and has to be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act while the entire assets and liabilities at book value was transferred to a special purpose vehicle M/s.Unique Receivable Management P. Ltd. and there being no waiver or benefit accruing to assessee on account of transfer ? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was a categorical finding of cessation/ remission of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act by the Tribunal in its e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V), which is evident from Clause 5 of the agreement entered into between the parties. Thus, on a consideration of the terms and conditions stipulated in the tripartite agreement, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that there was no liability in the hands of the assessee, because the liability had been transferred to the SPV. 5. The reason for considering this issue arose on account of an earlier order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.871/Mds/2011 dated 03.4.2012 in the assessee's own case. The said appeal was filed by the assessee relevant to the same assessment year namely 2006-07 challenging an order passed under Section 263 of the said Act dated 16.3.2011. In the said order, in paragraph 13, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue and observed that there is remission of bank liability accrued to the assessee at Rs. 46.05 Crores. Contrary to this, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that there was no cessation of liability in the hands of the assessee and it was only in the hands of URMP (SPV) and if any cessation is to be considered in the hands of URMP, we are not in a position to uphold the argument of the learned authorized representative as held by the Tribunal on earlier occasion. There is a remission of liability in favour of assessee company and the liability payable to the bank has been reduced to Rs. 43 Crores and it has to be brought to tax in the hands of assessee only under Section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered view that as the earlier order was of the prima facie view, the Tribunal is required to consider independently as to whether the finding rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is proper or not and that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.
9. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration uninfluenced by the observations made in paragraph 13 of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 03.4.2012. Since we have remanded the matter for a fresh consideration, it is open to both parties to raise all factual and legal contentions before the Tribunal. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
