9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing the income of the assessee for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer simply transferred the addition made in case of the overseas companies to the assessment order of Sh. Ajay Kalsi on the ground that he exercised control and management of the affairs of the overseas companies as laid down in section 6(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 without brining on record a concrete and substantial evidence to prove his role. Based on the assessment of Sh. Ajay Kalsi, by virtue of being a 50% share holder in Multi Asset Holdings Ltd., the Assessing Officer made an addition of similar amount in case of the assessee meaning thereby that the Assessing Officer did not assess the income of the assessee based on the details filed in her retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sident in India. under section 6(3)(ii) of the I.T. Act whereas on the basis of seized documents/e-mails and in various statements of Sh. Ajay Kalsi/Sh. Anil Aggarwal u/s 134(4) have admitted that taxability of these companies lies in India and these companies are resident for the tax purpose u/s 6 of the I.T. Act. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring that underlying assets and sources of revenue of all the overseas companies in which assessee is shareholder/beneficial owner are the Indian Companies. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the substantial evidence in form of seized material, E-mails, Share Holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce in the figures. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of assessment proceedings and issue/ services of notices are not in accordance with the provisions of law and accordingly the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice(s) is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of ₹ 497,94,74,501/- made by the AO is beyond the scope / jurisdiction of provisions of section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the addition made is liable to be deleted. The above grounds are without prejudice to each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 passed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order dated 31.3.2014, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 05.05.2015 deleted the protective additions made by the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal of the assesse. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and assessee has also filed the cross objections. 5. During the hearing, the Ld. CIT (DR) relied upon the order of Assessing Officer while the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the impugned orders. All the grounds in the revenue s a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that when addition was already made in the hands of the overseas companies on substantive basis treating them as residents in India, there is no justification for the Assessing Officer to make such an addition in the hands of a share holder on protective basis, when no benefit was derived by her from these companies to protect the interest of revenue. It is noted that without assessing the income of the assessee for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer simply transferred the addition made in case of the overseas companies to the assessment order of Sh. Ajay Kalsi on the ground that he exercised control and management of the affairs of the overseas companies as laid down in section 6(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 without brining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the action of the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, the grounds raised by the Revenue in other Appeals also rejected and accordingly, the other Revenue Appeals being ITA Nos. 5027, 5029, 5030, 5031 5032/DEL/2015 relating to assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 2012-13 also stand dismissed. ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJETIONS 9. Since we have dismissed all the Revenue Appeals as aforesaid by upholding the action of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, all the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee have become infructous and dismissed as such. 10. In the result, all the 06 Appeals of the Revenue as well as 06 Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01/12/2017. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
