TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UNE] AND Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited [ 2020 (1) TMI 1632 - ITAT CHENNAI] , even though learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer as embedded in the grounds of appeal set out herein above. Thus provisions of section 144C did not apply to the fact of this case as there was no variation in the income returned and the income assessed and accordingly the impugned assessment order was time barred. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6751/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2022 - Pramod Kumar (Vice President), And Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Milind Chavan. For the Respondent : Fenil Bhatt. ODER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VP: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition to its income or by varying the tax rates on the returned income. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) committed grave error in law by not appreciating the fact that the variation in income means higher tax liability for the assessee, in the present case the A.O. has increased the tax rate on the interest income of Rs. 32.27 cr. From 10% to 20%, thus increasing the tax liability of the assessee, which in effect means the same as varying the income of the assessee. 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) committed grave error in law by not deciding the issue of beneficial ownership of interest' by the assessee on merits and by simply stating that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , even though learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer as embedded in the grounds of appeal set out herein above. We however see no reason to take any other view of the matter then the view consistently taken by the coordinate benches including in the case of IPF India Property Cyprus Ltd. vs. DCIT (Supra) wherein speaking on the issue coordinate bench has inter alia observed as follows:- 2. In the first and grounds of appeal, which we will take up together, the assessee appellant has raised the following grievance: The learned AO has erred in passing a draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act, even when no variation has been proposed ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof. There is, quite clearly, no variation in the quantum of income. The question whether it was a case in which the Assessing Officer could have issued the draft assessment order, on the facts of this case, needs to be examined in the light of provisions of Section 144C(1) which provides that, The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee [Emphasis, by underlining, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P, a collegium of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax. DRP has nine months to pass directions which are binding on the AO. It is proposed that the provisions of section 144C of the Act may be suitably amended to:- (A) include cases, where the AO proposes to make any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, within the ambit of section 144C; (B) expand the scope of the said section by defining eligible assessee as a nonresident not being a company, or a foreign company. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2020. Thus, if the AO proposes to make any variation after this date, in case of eligible assessee, which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
