TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Private Limited do not constitute an AOP and the Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. being consortium member has rightly offered to tax the receipts under section 44BB of the Act in the return of income. On the face of this consistent view taken by the Tribunal over a period of time, there is no reason for us now to take a different view since there is no change of circumstances to affect the applicability of this consistent view for the years under consideration in these two appeals. Allow the grounds of appeal in these two appeals also. - ITA No.811/Del/2016, ITA No.812/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2021 - Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l raised in the Appeal memorandum which may kindly be considered as set out herein, the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, including grounds 1 to 5 therein. 1.1 Since the assessee, facts and issues involved in these appeals are common both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2.0 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of United States of America and has been engaged in the business of providing charter hire of drilling units along with the integrated services in connection with exploration, exploitation and production of mineral oils in India. Schlumberger Asia Services Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sent on the address of both the individual entities forming the AOP M/s SASL which were received back un-served. Subsequently, notices were again issued on 14.11.2013 and then on 13.02.2014 which were finally served to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed its reply dated 11.3.2014 denying the existence of AOP and requested for providing of reasons for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act by referring the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (259 ITR 19) . The reasons were then provided by the AO, but the assessee did not file the return of income. Subsequently, the reasons were provided to the assessee on 21.3.2014 and assessee s objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for AYs 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the appeal is not maintainable, since there is no impugned order against this appellant and accordingly none of the grounds were adjudicated and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for statistical purposes. Against the impugned order, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.0 The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had not disposed of the appeal on merits, but on the other hand had held that the appeal by the assessee is not maintainable since there is no impugned order against the assessee. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 5.0 We have carefully gone through the record and duly considered the submissions made by the either s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its alleged members, namely, Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. in individual capacity. This has been done by way of abundant precaution. 7. Considering the facts above, following the orders of my predecessor CIT (A) in the Appeals filed for AYs 2007-08, I hold that this appeal is not maintainable since there is no impugned order against this appellant. Accordingly, none of the grounds are adjudicated. 5.1 There is no dispute on facts that there is no order against the assessee to challenge in the appeal. However, it is brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that the issue is no longer res integra and the question whether or not the consortium Agreement dated 04/05/03 between Schlumberge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Drilling Inc. being consortium member has rightly offered to tax the receipts under section 44BB of the Act in the return of income. 5.4 On the face of this consistent view taken by the Tribunal over a period of time, there is no reason for us now to take a different view since there is no change of circumstances to affect the applicability of this consistent view for the years under consideration in these two appeals. No material is produced before us by the revenue to take a different view and the one that was taken in the earlier years. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a view that was taken consistently in assessee s own cases in earlier years should not be disturbed. We, therefore, while respectfully follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
