TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges are paid to Indian Companies in respect of the lease lines, the Tribunal opined that the matter has to be verified by the Assessing Officer and accordingly set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the said issue for the limited purpose to examine the nature of charges and verify whether this income has been offered in the hands of the recipients and the assessee to be afforded an opportunity before passing an order. Advance to subsidiary companies without charging any interest - Held that:- when there is a specific direction by the Tribunal to re-examine the matter in a particular manner, the Assessing Officer is bound to scrupulously follow the directions of the Tribunal. The direction of the Tribunal is binding on the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to conclude that no further evidence was produced by the petitioner may not be the correct approach to be adopted. On the given set of documents, the Assessing Officer was bound to cause verification of the details and ascertain the genuineness and then take a decision. However, while passing the impugned order this has not been done. The Assessing Officer has made a verification that with regard to the date of commenceme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the issues which has been remanded to him for consideration. The respondent issued notice dated 21.03.2017 fixing the date of hearing on 27.03.2017 and this notice was received by the petitioner on 24.03.2017. 3. The petitioner's case is that when they appeared before the respondent on 27.03.2017, they were informed that an order giving effect to the Tribunal's order had already been passed on 22.03.2017 whereby the addition of ₹ 1,57,00,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was deleted as per the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner was further informed that with regard to the other issues, a separate order would be passed. It is submitted that the order dated 22.03.2017 was made without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as the first date of hearing was fixed on 27.03.2017 and the order having been passed much earlier to the said date clearly shows that there was no opportunity. It is further submitted that on 27.04.2017, the petitioner received notice dated 24.04.2017 fixing the hearing date as 28.04.2017. It is stated that there was no hearing on 28.04.2017 as the respondent was on leave and the hearing was adjourned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the first order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 22.03.2017 giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal and thereby deleting the additions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further while passing the first order dated 22.03.2017, the respondent specifically stated that a separate order will be passed later with regard to the other issues and accordingly opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner participated in the personal hearing which culminated in the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to prefer an appeal and the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that in the personal hearing fixed on 03.05.2017, the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared and when he was questioned about the commencement of the business operations in January 2000 and claiming depreciation for the assessment year 2000-2001, the authorized representative did not have any answer and in the course of hearing on 03.05.2017, the assessee did not produced any evidence and therefore the respondent was justified in passing the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions as to whether the respondent was justified in passing multiple orders as it has become a hypothetical question in the instant case on account of the conduct of the assessee in not raising any objection with regard to the order dated 22.03.2017. Therefore, the said contention as to whether the respondent could pass multiple assessment orders for the same assessment year has not been taken up for consideration. This leaves us with the only issue as to whether the petitioner had an effective opportunity before the respondent prior to the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 was passed. The Tribunal by its order dated 16.01.2017 while granting partial relief to the petitioner by deleting the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer with certain directions. In paragraph No.7 of the order passed, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a paper book in support of the claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act and the crux of the issue lies on the date on which the production is actually commenced. 10. The petitioner drew the attention of the Tribunal to the said paper book by pointing out the approval from the Software Techn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer on M/s.Podapt Corporation Inc., USA, M/s.Prodapt Technology Holdings Private Limited and M/s.Southern Group Industries Private Limited to verify and pass orders after affording an opportunity to the assessee. The petitioner filed a letter before the Assessing Officer on 21.03.2017 requesting the respondent to pass a giving effect to order pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal. As observed by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer was required to examine the documents filed by the assessee in the form of a paper book and other verifications to be done and a decision be taken after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. However, the respondent passed an order dated 22.03.2017 giving effect to the order of the Tribunal thereby deleting the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as directed by the Tribunal. While doing so, the Assessing Officer specifically stated that with regard to the other issues which have been remitted for his consideration, separate order will be passed. The petitioner's case is that they are unaware about the said order and only when they attended the hearing on 27.03.2017, they were informed about the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
