9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax (Appeals) on 13.03.2009 in relation to the assessment year 2006-2007. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal through various grounds is against the direction of the ld. CIT(A) in not taking cognizance of the income under the head 'Capital Gains' of Rs. 1,28,37,866/- arising to the non-resident from the indirect transfer of 49% share in the India Company, embedded in the sale consideration for acquisition of 100% shares of the foreign company and thereby directing the Assessing Officer not to treat the assessee in default under section 195 of the Act read with sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident Indian company which was incorporated in 1955 as Tata Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of indirect transfer of 49% shares by Keyword Group Limited was held to be chargeable to tax for assessment year 2006-2007 as the transfer was effected through agreement dated 13.01.2006. The assessee's contention about non-chargeability did not find favour with the A.O., who held that the primary motive for acquisition of Keyword Group Limited was acquisition of shares of Cepha Imaging Private Limited. The A.O. also called for the balance sheet of Keyword Group Limited and noticed that it was incurring heavy losses. But for the investments held in Cepha Imaging Private Limited, the business of Keyword Group Limited was found to be loss making and liability imposing. In this background of facts, the A.O. reached the conclusion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer or calling for any remand report. On a pertinent query from the Bench, the learned AR was fair enough to accept that the additional evidence filed before the learned CIT(A) was not sent to the A.O. for his comments. From the paper book filed before us consisting of 73 pages, it is manifest that the assessee has clearly mentioned that all these documents were submitted before the learned CIT(A) only. As it is patent that the learned CIT(A) entertained additional evidence and deleted the liability of deducting tax at source by relying on such additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer, we are of the considered opinion that his order cannot be sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
