TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered as direction , why the same cannot be considered as legal. Deficiencies in not recording a satisfaction, not taking approval from the prescribed authority and limitation of time in initiating proceedings were clearly discussed. Since the findings in the order are after due consideration and elaborate discussion, the same cannot come within the purview of mistake apparent from record . If there is any error of judgment, the same has to be challenged in a higher forum. The application clearly suggests that the decision taken require review which is not within the purview of the provisions of Section 254(2). As rightly held in the case of Ramesh Electric Trading Co Ltd.[ 1992 (11) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the power of rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, hence, requested that the same may kindly be amended as per the provision of Section 254(2) of I.T.Act. The specific grounds on which the ITAT annulled the assessment order are summarized below: I. There was no direction in the order dt. 27.11.2012 justifying the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147. II. Even if such a finding/direction was there, it was illegal and beyond the powers of the Tribunal. III. The AO should not have followed the order of Hon'ble Tribunal blindly and should have examined the correctness thereof before acting on the same. IV. There was no sanction of the appropriate authority for issue of the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act. V. The notice u/s. 148 was barred by limitation of time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person responsible for making the payment to the Non Resident. If the Chinese constituent has not offered this amount as part of their taxable income in India, the AO may take suitable action for bringing the amount to tax in accordance with provisions of the Act . 3. This finding of ITAT was considered by Assessing Officer as direction of the ITAT and without following the due procedure as prescribed under the law initiated proceedings u/s. 163 and 147 of the IT Act. The ITAT in the impugned order ha s held that the same are null and void. While deciding, the ITAT elaborately discussed why the same cannot be considered as direction in para 9 and even if it is considered as direction , why the same cannot be considered as legal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
