Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. As we have noted above, the assessee has challenged the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. Both the parties fairly submitted and it was also deemed appropriate that the said grounds of appeal be taken up first for adjudication, thereafter, the merit of the addition so sustained and deleted by the Ld CIT(A) may be considered.

11. In this regard, during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant had filed its original return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring profit of Rs 21,05,90,768/- which was set off against the brought forward losses. However, tax was paid under sections 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2017 was issued after approval from the Worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and thereafter, the assessment was completed on 12.10.2017. The Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14 had referred the matter regarding receipt of GDRs to the Foreign Tax Department (FTD), the information of which was received from them before the completion of assessment and even before the issue of original notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.03.2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12. This fact emerges from the rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19.12.2018 filed by the assessee and is incorporated in the assessment order. The averments in respect of the information being available from Singapore and UK authorities with the department have not been denied. Thus, details in entirety in respect of GDR issue was available with the Assessing Officer at the time when the assessment proceedings in respect of original notice issued under section 148 on 26.03.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2018 has been issued on the basis of information received from investigation wing of department, New Delhi regarding certain non-genuine purchases by the appellant vide letter dated 26.03.2018 as mentioned in the reasons recorded. The appellant filed all documents regarding purchase bills, transport receipts, material inward register, payment of entry tax to Government. The assessee even requested for cross examination of the party concerned on whose statement the Income Tax Department was relying regarding non-supply of goods by them. The Assessing Officer has accepted the books of accounts and has made an adhoc addition of 20 percent of the purchase to cover any kind of extra profit. The action of the Assessing Officer in the absence of reliance on any credible evidence is unjustified and legally not tenable. The Assessing Officer has infact accepted the purchases but has taken 20 percent of the purchase price as extra profit in the absence of any evidence for reasons best known to him. The Assessing Officer has further extended the scope of enquiry regarding issue of GDR receipts credited in the assessee's books of accounts when all the material relied upon by him was available in the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.17 and the returned income was accepted by the then Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded in the present proceedings pertained only to alleged bogus purchases and not in respect of GDR issue. Rather, the Assessing Officer mentions in the reasons in Para 1 that earlier the case was reopened under section 148 on the issue of GDR receipts. The assessee had filed objections clearly stating that the basis of the information received from U.K Authorities in the month of April 2018 appears contrary to the material on record. The information received from U.K Authorities in April 2018 was the same as intimated by them to Foreign Tax Department to the Assessing Officer in June/July, 2016 on the basis of the documents shown to the authorized representative of the assessee. The extension of the scope of the proceedings under section 147 is against the provisions of law in view of the various judicial pronouncements specially when the information was on record at the time of issuance of original notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has only tried to justify extending the scope of his enquiry and has remained silent on the receipt of information from U.K Authorities in June/July, 2016 and from Singapore Authority on 03.06.2016. The addition on account of GDR proceeds under section 68 Income Tax Act, 1961 are without any basis and on the reliance of SEBI investigation of the lead manager to the issue, the SEBI report was also available on record as shown to the Authorised Representative of the assessee before the issue of the first notice of reassessment on 26.03.2017. As such, the assessment framed in respect of both the issues i.e. alleged bogus purchases and GDR issue is nothing but a change of opinion. All the details in respect of sales/purchases were on record during the course of earlier proceedings initiated vide issuance of notice under section 148 on 26.03.2017 and subsequent assessment framed. The assessee had filed its objections before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.12.2018 and contents thereof read as under:

38,30,88,075/- in securities premium account pertaining to five parties for which details were sought by the Assessing Officer. The assessee furnished information on 14th December, 2018.

However, it is relevant to point out that the issue relating to GDR receipts is not part of the reasons recorded for reassessment proceeding against which notice u/s 148 issued on 31st March, 2018 since the issue of GDR receipts was already subject matter of reassessment proceedings initiated for the present year vide reasons recorded and notice issued on 14th July, 2017 culminating in an assessment order on 12th October, 2017. The same is clear from para 1of reasons recorded which reads as" The case was reopened u/s 148 on the issue of GDR receipts. The assessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017". The present notices issued on 7th December, 2018 are beyond the reasons recorded and are based on no new material but are seeking to review the orders passed on the said issue on 12th October, 2017. The said proceedings are thus barred in terms of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kunal Organics Vs. DCIT 362 ITR 530. Further, for assessment year 2012-13, the issue regarding GDR receipts was subject matter of proceeding U/s. 147 on 26th March, 2017 and final orders were also passed on 12th October, 2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. It is also relevant to point out that the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 in which detailed queries were raised to the assessee on the GDR issue and the company has appropriately replied with relevant information and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th February, 2016 and 31st October, 2016 respectively. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1) dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment ltd., Albarma Ltd. of Singapore and M/s Cruise Waterford, UK are not traceable at the addresses of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14. It is presumed that the above information was already available with the IT Department before the order for reassessment for AY 2011-12 was passed on 12th October, 2017. Since the matter was examined thread bare and all information regarding the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December 2018 is beyond the reasons recorded and based on change of opinion and without any new material coming to the knowledge of the Assessment Officer. The issue of GDR was examined and it is presumed that all facets of the same were subject to application of mind by the Assessing Officer since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer. Thus the issue relating to GDR receipts cannot be re-opened as it would amount to change of opinion."

Further, for assessment year 2012-13, the issue regarding GDR receipts was subject matter of proceeding U/s. 147 on 26th March, 2017 and final orders were also passed on 12th October, 2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. It is also relevant to point out that the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 in which detailed queries were raised to the Assessee on the GDR issue and the company has appropriately replied with relevant information and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29 th February, 2016 and 31st October, 2016 respectively. Similar information is now being sought again.

This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P ltd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos. 1 to

5).

That the objections to the extension of the scope of inquiry when the material has been discussed in the reassessment for the A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and the Assessing Officer had specific information from Foreign Authorities and had recommended remedial action in the office note while passing the assessment order for the Assessment year 2013-14 shows that all information presently being used to expand scope of inquiry to present issues of GDR was there on file. prior to initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the Assessing Officer is deemed to have applied his mind thereto prior to conclusion of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017.