TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Such consequential amendments have been made to section 13 1, section 246A and section 253 of the Act. That however, no amendment is made in section 263 of the Act as a consequence of insertion of section 144C of the Act to deem such orders being capable of being revised. That therefore, the memorandum, circular, etc. support the Assessee's stand that once the Assessing Officer passes an order in accordance with the Directions issued by a superior authority (being DRP) the same cannot be revised by the CIT under section 263 of the Act Scheme of the Act itself does not provide any interference in the direction of the DRP as the law containing section 144C(13) directs that the AO shall pass an order inconformity with the directions of the DRP without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When the Act itself provide, that order has to be passed by the AO without providing any opportunity to the assessee pursuant to the direction of the DRP, the direction given in this order u/s. 263 by the Ld.CIT to the AO to call for the details of allowability of various deductions claimed by the assessee, in light of the observations discussed by him is quiet c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 1.1 The CIT has erred in holding that order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27 September 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Assessment Order) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue; 1.2 The CIT has erred in not appreciating that where a legally permissible view is adopted while passing the Assessment order, the same cannot be considered as erroneous for the purpose of section 263 of the Act; 1.3 The CIT has erred in setting aside the Assessment Order with directions to the learned AO to make a fresh assessment and examine the taxability of the following issues: Loss on transfer of retail loan portfolio amounting to INR 65,51,06,135; Loss on sale of loan portfolios to asset reconstruction company amounting to INR 5,62,20,992; Service tax credit written off amounting to INR 13,88,97,251; and Disallowance related to Derivative Sales Credit (DSC) amounting to INR 3,68,30,713 Ground no 2 On the facts and in circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case and in law in holding that the learned AO has not examined the allowability of deduction pertaining to service tax written off amounting to INR 13,88,97,251 and, hence, the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue 5.1 The CIT erred in holding that the learned AO has not verified whether the deduction in respect of the service tax written off amounting to INR 13,88,97,251 is allowable under section 37 of the Act; and 5.2 The CIT erred in holding that the learned AO has not verified whether only unavailed credits of the year under consideration have been allowed or cumulative credits of various years has also been allowed. Ground no 6 Without prejudice to Ground nos 1 2 above, the learned CIT has erred in fact and in circumstances of the case and in law in holding that the learned AO has not examined the disallowance relating to DSC and, hence, the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue 6.1 The CIT erred in holding that the learned AO has not complied with the directions of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax for verification of DSC claim of the Appellant; and 6.2 The CIT erred in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dences produced, including order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, draft order as provided under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was prepared and sent to the eligible Assesses on 31M December 2016. The Assessee filed objection against the said draft order before the DRP-1, Mumbai. 6. On 6th September 2017, the DRP 1, Mumbai passed order under section 144C (5) of the Income? Tax Act 1961. The DRP-1, Mumbai, vide said order, directed the assessing officer to give effect to the directions contained in the said order. Effect to the directions of the DRP is given as under: 7. Adjustments made by the transfer pricing officer;- 7.1 Barclays Bank PLC had a number of international transactions with its associated enterprises. With respect to these transactions, the bank had submitted an audit report in Form No. 3CEB along with the return of income, which was forwarded to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of arm's length price vide letter dated 10.03.2016. The Transfer Pricing Officer has passed order under section 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31sl October 2016 and made an adjustment of Rs, 83,04,bl,395. The details of adjustments are as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier receipts. Further, the assesse contended that the said payments are not subject to tax and accordingly no TDS is required to be withheld on the same. 8.2 In the written submission dated 16 December 2016, it is contended as under: Barclays Capital. ;i division of Barclays Bank Ple. UK (Barclays UK) manages the global derivatives operations of the Barclays group. The derivative products offered to clients typically include foreign exchange, interest rate and equity. The remittance made to Barclays UK is in relation to the origination, coordination and client relationship management activities undertaken with clients/prospective clients outside India, in respect of derivative products of the assessee. This payment for the said activities within the Barclays group is termed as Derivative Sales Credit (DSC). Barclays UK is remunerated for these activities as per the global transfer pricing policy followed by Barclays Group. Barclays UK performs the DSC activities in the ordinary course of its business. Further, we wish to submit that Barclays India also receives from Barclays UK the DSC in relation to the origination. Coordination/liaisoning and client relationship man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 only submitted the product level details and failed to submit party-wise details to evidence the derivative transactions. Accordingly, given the lack of sufficient documents, the said DSC expenses amounting to GBP 84,876 (Rs 7,353,269) is disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C ) are initiated on this issue. 8.6 Assessee filed objections before the DRP-1, Mumbai, disputing additions on the above issues. The DRP 1, Mumbai, vide order dated 6' September 2017, passed under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act 1961, has dismissed and rejected all objections raised on the issue. In view of the statutory directions issued under section 144C{5) of the I.I. Act 1961, re computation of DCS expenses, and consequent upward adjustment to the total returned income, as made in the draft order, shall continue. Penalty proceedings initiated on this issue. 9. In view of the order passed under section 144C(1) followed by order passed under section 144C(5) of the I.T. Act 1961, total income, as provided under section 144C(13) read with section 1.43(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is computed and assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the case record in the case of M/s. Barclays Bank PLC for A.Y. 2013-14 in which the assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the IT Act, 1961 on 27.09.2017, following discrepancies have been found: (i) M/s. Barclays Bank PLC is a company incorporated in United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of banking and as such the provisions of section 36(1 )(viia) are applicable to it. As per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia), a bank incorporated outside India can claim an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts. Further as per the provisions of section 36(2)(i)money lent in the ordinary course of business which is not recoverable, can be claimed as bad debts as per the first proviso of section 36(1 )(vii) subject to provisions of section 36(1)(viia)r.w.s 36(2)(v). Section 36( i)(vii) deals with actual write off and section 36(l)(viia) deals with provision of bad and doubtful debts. As per notes to the financial statements schedule 18(2), the bank decided not to originate any retail loans pertaining to the retail banking division with effect from 07.12.2011 till the finalisation of a new strategy and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reserve accounts and per guideline of the RBI is allowable as business loss has not been verified by the Assessing Officer. (iii). As per rule 6(3B) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, a banking company, engaged in providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances, shall pay an amount equal to 50 percent of the Cenvat credit availed on inputs and input services. Accordingly, a banking company is eligible to claim only 50 percent of the input credit available. During the financial year ended 31.03.2013, the assessee has written off the service tax credit to the extent of 50% amounting to Rs. 13,88,97,25l/- since it is not eligible to claim the said input creditand debited the P L account as other expenditure. The Assessing officer has not verified whether such deduction being a type of tax paid by the assessee is allowable u/s. 37 or not. iv). The Joint Commissioner of Income tax Range 1(2) had issued order u/s 144A dt. 13/12/2016 to the AO to verify the derivative Sales Credit (DSC) claim of the Assessee Bank, wherein he observed that no evidence or supporting documents has been produced by the assessee Bank before him to establish its claim that the transactions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O has accepted the submission without examining the same or conducting further enquiries. 7. Ld CIT proceeded to reject the submissions by observing as under :- 11.1. The judicial precedents are contrary to the claim of the assessee that mere filing of details on an issue is sufficient to preclude the Commissioner of Income Tax from acquiring jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. That is to say, such a proposition would be a misconceived one. In the case of Mahatakshmi Liquor Promoters 'P Ltd us. Commissioner of Income To [2013] 29 taxmann.com 70, the Id. Tribunal, found that there was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT. It was held that the lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer was a valid reason for revision of the assessment order. The Id. Tribunal further held that it can safely be said that an order passed by the Assessing Officer becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue under section 263 if it is a stereotype order which simply accepts what the assessec has stated in his return or where he fails to make the requisite enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim called for. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Pt. Lashkari Ram 272 ITR 309(Al1), wherein it has been held that failure to make sufficient enquiry with regard to the revised income justified revision u/s 263. In the case of Ramapyari Devi Saraogi 67 ITR 84(SC), it was held that where Assessment completed in undue haste and without making proper enquiry, the CIT can invoke revisional power under sec. 263. 11.6. In the case of CIT v. Pushpa Devi [19871 164 ITR 639 (Pat,): Nonenquiry into source of capital is an error - Enquiry into the source of the initial capital is crucial for the AO. If that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue. 11.7. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 119751 99 ITR 375 (Delhi).-Omission to make further enquiries is an error - The Commissioner can regard the AO's order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the AO should have made further enquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. 11.8. In the case of Arnbica Agro Suppliers 100 TTJ 405(Pune)-No enquiry regarding expenditure etc. Mere filing of explanation does not indicate application of mind-Acceptance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding valuation and pricing aspects of the MASTER circular issued by RBI dated 1 July 2015 regarding prudential norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances, lays down that banks which propose to sell their financial assets should ensure that the sale is conducted in a prudent manner in accordance with a policy approved by the Board. One of the key ingredients is that there has to be a Valuation procedure to be followed to ensure that the realisable value of financial assets is reasonably estimated . The AO has not examined this aspect at all while allowing the loss of Rs.65.51 crores claimed by the assessee. No docents have been furnished before the A.O. Allowance of such a large claim without adequate examination is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 14. Issue 2: Slump sale under Section 50B The assessee has made sale of loan portfolio business as one time basis, therefore the same is in the nature of slump sale within the meaning of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 50B of the Act. The provisions of section 50B of the Act, any profits and gains arising from slump sale effected in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g has been retained by the assessee; as such this cannot be treated as a slump sale. But the fact to be considered is assessee is in the field of intellectual property rights. Computers, furniture, etc. which is linked with the business of the assessee has. been sold. The items that the assessee kept separately, has nothing to do with assessees business, which is sold/ handed over to the purchaser, i.e., IISL. The business has been sold. The purchaser could very well carry on the business, which was carried by the assessee before the sale, without purchasing any independent items. In view of the above, the plea of the revenue that the assessee has not sold the undertaking as a whole, is difficult to accept . The Honble Punjab Haryana High court in case of Max India 319 ITR 68 held that the Tribunal held that the sale was a slump sale if it was a sale of a going concern, even if some of the assets were retained by the transferor and sections 50 and 50A of the Act were not applicable. In this case, the assessee has transferred a business asset and the business asset was transferred for a lump sum consideration without any specific value assigned to each asset. This particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and debited the P L account as other expenditure. Among others, the AO has not examined (i) whether such a deduction being a type of tax paid by the assessee is allowable u/s 37 or not; (ii) whether only the unavailed credits of the year under reference have been allowed or cumulative credits of various years has been allowed. Non-examination of this issue by the AO is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 17. Issue 5: Disallowance related to DSC: The then Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(2) had given direction u / s 144A vide order dated 13. 12.2016 to verify the derivative Sales Credit (DSC) claim of the assessee. He observed that no evidence or supporting documents has been produced by the assessee Bank before him to establish it's claim that the transaction in respect of the Indian clients actually originated from UK and Barclays Bank Plc UK referred these cases to the assessee bank. The assessee was asked to furnish the details in respect of Sale of Derivative Products for A.Y 2013-14 in respect of Indian clients with details, production description, Date of sales, Amount received and Mode of payment including the modus operan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that he will observe the principles of natural justice by affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to file details and explain its case, arriving at a lawful conclusion. 9. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Ld counsel for the assessee has summarized his submission on the jurisdictional aspect as under :- Re: Ground no 2: The Assessee's Ground of Appeal No. 2 reads as follows: On the facts and in circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act when the original assessment order has been passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on the basis of the direction of the DRP . In this regard, we submit as under: 1. An Order passed at the direction of Superior Officer can only be revised, if it comes within Explanation 1(a) to section 263 of the Act - 1.1. As per the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may revise an order passed by the Assessing Officer, if the same is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxman 11 (Born.) wherein it was held by the Jurisdictional High Court that the assessee had approached the DDIT (investigation) under the Direct tax Amnesty Scheme. The CIT had accepted that the taxable income be computed at 8 percent of the total receipts. A second CIT, on scrutiny and verification of the assessees records, found the decision of the earlier CIT to be fair and justifiable. A subsequent CIT, sought to revise the order under section 263, and tax income at 9 percent of the receipts. The Bombay High Court inter alia held that the assessment orders were solely based on the directives of the earlier CITs, and the same could not be revised by the subsequent CIT under section 263. (h) 2. Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that in the case of Philips India Ltd. v. Pr, CIT [ I.T. Appeal No 1142 (Kol) of 2016, dated 27-3-2019, the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of section 144C(5) of the Act, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. 3.2 Further, the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 144C empowers the DRP to make any further enquiry or cause any further enquiry to be made by the Income-tax authority as it thinks fit. 3.3, Section 144C(13) provides that upon receipt of the directions issued by DRP, the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3.4. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer has followed the direction of the DRP and completed the assessment in conformity of the direction of the DRP. Therefore, the final Assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous. In fact, if the Assessing Officer had made any addition in the final assessment order which were not as per the direction of the DRP, the said assessment order would be held to be invalid and contrary to law. 3.5.The Appellant submits that, aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Hon'ble Court has not considered the provision of section 144C(13) of the Act and, therefore, the Petitioner submits that the said decision ought not to be relied on to decide the issue on hand. 4. Members of DRP being equal in rank to that of CIT, revision of orders passed in conformity with the directions oldie DRP is not warranted 4.1 Section 1 44C( 15) of the Act has defined DRP as below: 144C(15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) Dispute Resolution Panel means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose, 4.2 It can be seen from the above definition that DRP comprises of Principal Commissioners orCommissioners who are of same rank as that of CIT who is authorized to revise orders under section 263 of the Act. This fact is further clarified from the provisions of Section 253(1 )(d) of the Act, which provides for an appeal from the order of the Assessing Officer pursuant to DRP's direction to the ITAT and bars an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, it is submitted that CIT does not hold jurisdiction under Section 263 to revisit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminate further litigation. 4. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider this issue post amendment in the reported case of (1998) 147 CTR (SC) 474 : (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) CIT vs Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. Following is an extract from the decision. 5. The main contention of the assessee which was considered by the Tribunal was whether or not the order of the ITO regarding the said three items in respect of which the assessee had no occasion to prefer an appeal had merged in that of the CIT(A) so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the CIT under s. 263 of the Act. 6. We may refer to the amendment made in s. 263 of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from 1st June, 1988. The relevant part thereof for the present case is as under: Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,--. (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the AO had been the subject-matter of any appeal filed on or before or after 1st June, 1988, the powers of the CIT under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 263 in respect of issues not touched by the CIT(A) in his appellate order and that that issues not dealt with the CIT(A) cannot be treated as merged in the appellate order. 9. It is submitted that the powers of the DRP are analogous to the CIT(A). Just as the CIT(A) can do what an Assessing Officer can do and the CIT(A) has power of enhancement (refer 53 ITR 225(SC)), similarly the DRP has similar powers u/s 144C (8) (refer Delphi-TVS Diesel Systems Limited [TS-927-HC202 l(MAD)]). 10. If the Apex Court has held that scope of powers of CIT u/s 263 extends to all matters not touched by CIT(A), the scope in respect of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C as per directions of the DRP cannot be any different. 11. While though I am not aware of, even if there be any decision of the Hon'ble ITAT on the aspect of initiations of the proceedings u/s 263 in respect of order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144(C), there are no direct judgments of the High Court on this subject except the decision by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Devas Multimedia P. Ltd. V/s. PCIT (2020) 268 Taxman 150, (2019) 111 Taxmann.com 494(Kar). In this decision the Hon'ble Karnataka High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the final law of land. iii) Tej Intr. V/s. DCIT 2000 69 TTJ 650 (Del). 12. We have carefully gone through the submissions in the case laws and the records. 13. First, we note that in this case, the assessment order was passed after transfer pricing adjustment were made by the TPO. These have been detailed in the assessment order para 7 of the assessment order referred above. The TP adjustment made by TPO were in total Rs. 83,045,395/-. Assessee had made objection before the DRP and pursuant to DRP direction, the assessment was framed as per section 144C(13). 14. As against the above, Ld.CIT has noted that in this case TPO has not proposed any adjustment. This is contrary to the facts in this case, the above shows that Ld.CIT has exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 without properly appreciating the assessment order passed. He also seems to be ignoring the fact that assessee has chosen to file objection before the DRP. When the assessment order has been passed pursuant to the direction of DRP, the appeal from the said assessment order does not lie with the ld.CIT(A), but lies directly to the ITAT as per provision of section 253(d). Now, the issue to be addressed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.] 16. A reading of the above shows that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief commissioner may revise order passed by the AO, if the same is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Explanation 1(a) of the Act referred above explains the order passed by the AO which can be subject matter of section 263 revision. The above explanation explains/clarifies that order of the AO in certain cases passed on the direction of certain superior officers can also be subject matter of section 263. The above explanation does not include the order passed under the direction of DRP u/s. 144C(13) of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to include orders passed by the AO under direction u/s. 144A, but not under direction u/s. 144C(13). This is also in accordance with the provisions of the Act contained in section 144C, which we shall detailed at a later stage. The Ld.CIT in this case seems to be quiet conscious of this fact as he has mentioned on one of the issues, that AO has not properly followed the direction u/s. 144A. But, he is quiet silent and has nowhere mentioned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer the acceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 [or section 153B], pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. (6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in sub-section (5), after considering the following, namely:- (a) draft order; (b) objections filed by the assessee; (c) evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (14b) The central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and account ability by- (a) eliminating the interface between the dispute resolution panel and the eligible assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible; (b) optimizing utilization of the resources through economies of scale and functional specialization; (c) introducing a mechanism with dynamic jurisdiction for issuance of directions by dispute resolution panel (14C) The Central Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme made under sub-section(14B), by notification in the Official Gazette direct that any of the provisions of this act shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notifications. Provided that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 2022 (14D) Every notification issued under sub-section(14B) and sub-section (14C) shall, as soon as may be af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Therefore, there is no question of the PCIT holding that the final assessment Order is erroneous so as to come within the ambit of 263. Hence the final assessment order can only be erroneous only when the Assessing Officer has not followed the mandate of section 144C(13) of the Act. Further, it is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly [ Quando aliquidprohibetur ex directo, prohibetur etper obiiquum] If the AO could not have directly made any change in the final assessment order after the direction of the DRP, then the PCIT also cannot indirectly make any change so as to circumvent the provision of section 144C(13) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Supertech Limited v Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors. (MANU/SC/08643/2021). 19. Further, the scheme of the Act itself does not provide any interference in the direction of the DRP as the law containing section 144C(13) directs that the AO shall pass an order inconformity with the directions of the DRP without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained under section 144C. 22. From the above, it is also apparent that members of the DRP are three in numbers and are individually equivalent in rank to the CIT, who is initiating proceedings u/s. 263 against the order passed by the AO pursuant to their direction. Now as far as equivalence of single CIT to a colliguem of 3 CIT is concerned, it is settled law that bench comprising single persons is not higher/superior than a collegiums of three persons. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the DRP stands at a higher pedestal than the CIT passing an order alone. 23. Furthermore, we may refer to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High court in the case of Virendra Kumar Jhamb vs. N.K.Vohra (supra). In this case, the Jurisdictional High Court held that the assessee had approached the DDIT (investigation) under the Direct tax Amnesty Scheme. The CIT had accepted that the taxable income be computed at 8 percent of the total receipts. A second CIT, on scrutiny and verification of the assesses records, found the decision of the earlier CIT to be fair and justifiable. A subsequent CIT, sought to revise the order under section 263, and tax income at 9 percent of the receipts. The Bombay H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
