9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment proceedings against it in terms of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner also assails the order dated 15.11.2019 rejecting the petitioner's objections preferred to the said reassessment proceedings. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus. It is engaged in the business of provision of information technology enabled services to the financial payments industry. The petitioner advanced a loan to its Indian group company, namely TSYS Card Tech Services India Private Limited (TSYS India) under an External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) agreement, of US$ 2 million. Under the agreement, the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands deducted and deposited. 8. On 01.10.2019, the petitioner sent another response reiterating its submissions. The petitioner also claimed that as per Form 26AS, the petitioner had received interest income of Rs. 37,66,311/-. 9. The objections of the petitioner were disposed of by the respondents by passing the impugned order dated 15.11.2019. From the reading of the said order, for the first time, the purported reasons for re-opening emerged. Pertinently, as per the order, the ITD database of the petitioner assessee revealed that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 75,32,622/- during the Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The impugned order, however, does not at all advert to the petitioner's submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this exercise is to examine whether - in the light of the objections raised, the notice under Section 148 of the Act should be dropped, or pursued, so as to prevent the assessee from facing unnecessary and avoidable harassment and expenditure in the process of re-assessment and also to save a wasteful exercise being undertaken by the Assessing Officer. 13. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has completely failed to apply his mind to the submissions of the petitioner and also to examine as to how the two different Form 26 AS have been generated by the system. 14. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2019 since it suffers from complete non-application of mind. The Assessing Officer shall proceed to pass a fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
