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

2018 (4) TMI 1588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ether they are proper and after verifying them, pass appropriate order as to whether the benefit of section 10A should be granted - as the issue was not examined by the Assessing Officer and it was rejected at the threshold, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration and for complying with the requirements of section 10A of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Order passed by the ld. DRP as a non-speaking order - Held that:- This Tribunal in many of such cases have restored the issue to the file of DRP for passing a speaking order on each of the objection of the assessee raised before it. It is a fit case where the entire matter should be restored back to the file of D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as not granted by the Assessing Officer on the reason that DRP was of the opinion that as per section 144C(2) of the Act , the assessee can file its objections only in relation to such variation as referred to in sub-section (1) of sec. 144C. Sub section 1 of sec. 144C refers to any variation made by the Assessing Officer in income or loss returned as made by the Assessing Officer as is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. The above objections do not at all relate to any such variation made by the Assessing Officer in income or loss, as returned by the assessee in its return for assessment year 2011-12. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion, the alternative claim of the assessee is to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RP by a speaking order. The DRP has not dealt with each of the objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order and giving cogent reason for not accepting the objection of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The matter was referred to the DRP u/s 144C of the IT Act. Under sub-section (1) of Section 144C, the Assessing Officer is under an obligation to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. Under sub-section (2) of Section 144, the assessee within 30 days of the receipt of such draft order can accept the variation made by the Assessing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue respectively. Under sub-section (12) directions under sub-section (5) cannot be passed after nine months from the end of the month in which draft order is forwarded to the eligible assessee. Under sub-section (13), on receipt of directions issued under subsection (5), the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. 8.2 The directions passed by DRP u/s 144C (5), as it can be seen in the pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at could have been a matter of debate was put to rest by Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, ld. Counsel for the revenue by stating that the order passed on 30th September, 2010, contained in Annexure- P1, deserves to be quashed and the matter be remanded to the said authority for fresh adjudication. In view of the aforesaid fair concession, the order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the said respondent to adjudicate afresh. Be it noted, when a quasi-judicial authority deals with a list, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter and further, the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in questi .....

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