9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as the Tribunal ) challenging the said order of assessment and the Tribunal by order dated 16.01.2017 remitted the matter to the file of the respondent with certain directions after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before giving effect to the order of the Tribunal. The respondent sent a communication dated 21.03.2017 stated to have been enclosed with relevant documents and details and sought for issuance of revised assessment order by giving effect to the order of the Tribunal with 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 Rs. 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 submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the petitioner had filed the paper book which they had submitted before the Tribunal which contains all relevant details which were not considered by the respondent while passing the impugned assessment order. Further, the respondent did not consider the scope of remand as ordered by the Tribunal and the findings rendered are wholly unsustainable. On the above ground, the learned counsel seeks for setting aside the impugned order. 6. M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 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 petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner during the course of argument submitted that multiple assessment orders cannot be passed for the same assessment year as in the petitioner's case when the first order was passed on 22.03.2017 and the second order on 04.05.2017 (impugned), in the prayer sought for in the writ petition the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 22.03.2017. This is presumably due to the reason that the said order is in favour of the assessee. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to examine the contentions 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 deleti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether this income has been offered in the hands of the recipients and the assessee to be afforded an opportunity before passing an order. 11. In the next issue with regard to advance to subsidiary companies without charging any interest, the Tribunal held that one more opportunity has to be provided to the assessee to explain the commercial expediency of the said transactions with the subsidiary company before the Assessing Officer and accordingly remitted the dispute of interest disallowance 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 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
