9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation has filed provisional return u/s. 172(3) of Income Tax Act for 12 vessels in respect of 16 voyages undertaken during F.Y. 2016-17. The assessing officer has granted no objection certificate for port clearance of the vessels in all the 16 cases. As per proviso of section 172(3), the final return was furnished by the agent in each case, however the combined order was passed in these cases since similar issues were involved in these voyages. On perusal of the return filed for the above mentioned vessels, the assessing officer observed that the Maersk Tankers Singapore Pvt. Ltd. PTE Ltd. Singapore was the beneficiary and the agent has declared freight income totaling US $ 15,51,33,540/-. The assessing officer has noticed that in these voyages remittance of shipping income has been made in the following manner:- Sr. No. Name of vessel Number of voyages Freight/Shipping income (in Rs.) Details of Remittance 1 MT Maersk Producer 2 12,16,08,984 The funds were remitted into the account of the beneficiary i.e. "MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.", at account maintained with the The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, Singa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not tax it due to some reasons. Singapore follows territorial system of taxation where foreign source income is taxable only if the same is received in Singapore, therefore, if the money is not remitted to Singapore, the same is not taxable and hence it results in double non-taxation which cannot be the objective of any treaty. The assessing officer was of the view that Article 24 of the DTAA has universal application to all the articles of the treaty including article 8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore. The assessing officer has also observed that since income from shipping forms part and parcel of the treaty, the same is also covered as per article 24 of the DTAA and therefore, the income having source in India would be exempt only if it were subject to tax in Singapore. However, as per the provisions of section 13 of the Singapore Income Tax freight receipts are not actually subjected to tax in Singapore and thus the claim of the assessee of exemption from freight receipt is hit by article 24 of the DTAA. The assessing officer has stated that Article 24 of the DTAA in the agreement between India and Singapore states explicitly that benefit of exemption from tax in a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhimsen Dixit, AIR 1972 SC 2466 (SC) (d) Devi Karunariamman Educational Trust Vs OCIT(233 Taxman 420)(Mad) (e) CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Limited (206 ITR 727)(Bom) (iii) As per Article 8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore shipping profits taxable only in the state of tax residency. Thus, it is clear that taxing rights are given exclusively to the state of residence, In the case of Singapore companies like M/s Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte, Ltd, the exclusive rights to tax shipping profits lies with the Singapore Tax Authority. (iv) The conditions mentioned in Article 24 of the DTAA between India and Singapore are not met in the case of the 16 voyages (mentioned at exhibit-A) undertaken by the various vessels, (v) The provisions of Article 24 are not attracted to income governed by Article 8 of the India Singapore DTAA. (vi) Income exempt from tax cannot be interpreted as income taxable only in one state. The provisions of the DTAA between India and Singapore contained in Articles 20, 21 and 22 are specific as to the relevance of the term exempt from tax. it is submitted that this claim has been upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in (he case of APL Co Pte L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmerce published on 23rd February 2001 as under: "The brood principle of "operation test" is used to determine whether the income is derived in Singapore so as to be liable to tax in Singapore. If the business operations are carried out in Singapore, then income derived from these operations is usually said to be sourced in Singapore and thus liable to tax here. Whether business operations are carried out In Singapore Is largely a question of fact and degree." (ix) The e-Tax guide published by the IRAS on 31st May 2013 detailing the tax exemption for certain foreign sourced income provides guidance on what is foreign-sourced income. As per para 3 of the e-Tax guide, foreign income is income that does not arise from a trade or business carried on in Singapore. (x) The IRAS e-Tax guide for tax exemption for foreign sourced income (second edition) at para 6 provides for scope of specified foreign income, As per para 6.3 service income refers to income from professional, technical, consultancy or other services provided by a specified resident taxpayer in the course of its trade, profession or business. Such service income is considered foreign-sourced If the services are provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile year of assessment 2003 and subsequent years of assessment from ,.,., (IA) Unless the Minister or such person ns lie may appoint permits in a particular case, subsection (l)(e) does not apply the (2) The exemption for each approved international shipping enterprise- (a) Shall be for such period not exceeding 10 yean front She date of its approval as the Minister of such person as he may appoint may specify, except that the Minister or such person ax lie may appoint may extend the period so specified for such further periods, not exceeding 10 years at a time, as he thinks fit; or (b) If, at the time of its approval, the company does mil, in ilia opinion of the Minister or such person as he may appoint, satisfy such qualifying conditions as the Minister or person may determine for the purposes of paragraph (a), shall be far such period not exceeding 5 years from the date of its approval as the Minister or person may specify ........................" (xiv) The assesses has quoted the following decisions in the submission made on 22/12/2017 to validate the claim that Article 24 is not applicable in its case: (a) Case of M.T, Maersk Mikage vs. DIT (international Taxati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst 10 years of residence. HM Revenue and Customs therefore argued that because the pension income was exempt from tax In Israel It could not be said to subject to tax. On the other hand, the taxpayer claimed that he Is covered by tax regime in Israel by virtue of his living there even though Israel does not levy tax in UK pension income because of the exemption, (4) Following the decision in Bayflne UK v HMRC (STS 717), the tribunal found that the double tax treaty should be interpreted using a purposive rather that a literal approach. The primary purpose of the double tax treaty is to eliminate double tax and prevent the avoidance of tax, the purpose is not therefore to enable the double non taxation of income, The case therefore centered around the meaning of the phrase "subject to tax" and the difference in international tax treaties between this phrase and the phrase "liable to tax", The first tier tribunal decided the case In favour of HM Revenue and Customs such that relief was not available under the UK-Israel tax treaty to exempt the pension from UK tax because the pension was not subjected to tax in Israel. (5) The second term used in condition referred at (v)(b) abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the claim of the assessee to treat the shipping income as accrued or arisen in Singapore is not acceptable. (ix) In this case if the shipping income is not treated as foreign income then the income accrued in or derived from Singapore operations should be subjected to tax in cases where remittances have not been made directly to Singapore, Further, in this case it is clear that the source of freight income is India as the activities have been carried out In India. Therefore, the stand taken by the Singapore Tax Authority that the income is to be taxed on accrual basis In Singapore is an anomaly due to the fact that the income is actually deemed to accrue or arise in India as per the Income Tax Act ot india, The only redeeming factor is the DTAA between the two countries to avoid double taxation of Income , but not double avoidance as is being made out here. (x) In this case it is clear that the shipping business is handled by M/s Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore, an entity that is tax resident of Singapore. (xi) The confirmation letter of the IRAS dated 6th August, 2013 is inconclusive to the extent that the taxability of such income has not been explained in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectly to Singapore. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under:- "The purpose of the relevant provision in the tax treaty is indeed one of the relevant considerations in deciding the contextual meaning. The purpose of including Article 24, Limitation of Benefit clause, should first be considered to understand the context in right perspective. With the introduction of DTAAs, many corporations started exploiting treaty laws to evade tax liability completely. Therefore, in order to prevent abuse of treaty benefits and treaty shopping, countries revised their tax treaties to includean anti-abuse provision called the limitation of benefit clause, referred to as LOB clause. This provision was brought to limits the benefits of favorable tax treaties. The context in which the term 'exempt from tax is used in Article 24 of the treaty is that there should be limitation of relief to be derived from tax treaty. Therefore, if an income is to be granted an exclusion from taxable income in one of the contracting state, such an exclusion must depend on its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is actually exempt from tax in the residence jurisdiction, given the unambiguous thrust of the treaty on income being subjected to tax in one contracting state to be able to claim treaty protection in the other contracting state, and avoidance of double non-taxation is a clear objective of the Indo Singapore tax treaty, such an exempt income will also be liable to get treaty protection in the source state.. even though this situation has arisen due to their evasive and not so transparent conduct." Article 24 of tax treaty makes it clear that what has not actually suffered tax in one contracting state cannot be allowed treaty benefit in the: other contracting state. Article 24 is an anti-abuse provision brought in to curb abuse of tax treaty in such situations only. A tax treaty is to be interpreted in 'good faith' in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context in light of its objects and purpose. If particular words and phrases in a treaty are doubtful, their construction should be governed by the general object of the treaty and by the context. The 'purpose' is not the same as the subjective intention of Contracting S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of gains or profits from any trade, business, profession or vocation, The AR has made a failed attempt to distinguish income 'accrued or derived' from the term 'received. The AR has very conveniently ignored the fact that the term used in the treaty is 'received or remitted and the term 'remitted' finds no mention in Singapore Income Tax Act (SITA). Appellant talks about taxation of accrual basis under section 10(1) of the Singapore Income Tax Act, without any comments on actual taxability of the impugned income in Singapore, The appellant has relied upon the letter issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore dated 8 November 2017 in the assessment order passed under section 172(4) of the IT Act where in it has been confirmed in the said letter that freight, income from the subject vessels shall be taxable in Singapore on an arising or accrual basis regardless of whether it is remitted to or received in Singapore and therefore Article 24 would not be applicable. What this letter or arguments miss out is the vital fact that the said income was never actually taxed in Singapore because of a specific exemption provision, It has not been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is subject to tax on income on accrual basis. But the factual position is that the appellant has availed exemption under section 13F of the Singapore's Income Tax Act, and, to that extent, the freight income from voyages performed in India is riot actually subjected to tax in Singapore even though it was liable to be taxed there by the virtue of residence of the appellant. The AR of the appellant submitted that a mere exemption of income in Singapore does not take that income out of the ambit of income liable to be taxed in Singapore on accrual basis, and it will be eligible for treaty benefits nevertheless. The contention of the appellant that income taxable on accrual basis in Singapore is not subject to provisions of Article 24 of the treaty is a self-serving argument. Article 24 is an anti abuse provisions in the tax treaty with emphasis on 'subject to tax1 to avoid double non-taxation. As regards Appellant's reliance, upon the judicial precedents in the cases of AzadiBachrioAndolan, Vcnkatesh Karrier and Emirate Shipping Lines, in these cases, expression used is 'liable to tax1. These DTAAs are different from India Singapore DTAA as the express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urces in a Contracting State shall be exempt from tax, or taxed at a reduced rate in that Contracting State and under the laws in force in the other Contracting State the said income is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof then the exemption or reduction of tax to be allowed under this Agreement in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State,' In the case of Vessel 'MT Maersk Tianjin1 it is clear that the freight income is liable to tax but not subjected to tax in Singapore. Therefore, the freight income is not subjected to tax in Singapore by reference to the amount which is actually remitted. In the case of MT Maersk Mihage vs. DIT ilnternational Taxation) [2016] 72 toxmann.com 359 (Gujarat), the Honorable Gujarat High Court left the issue open on the issue of exemption of freight income on the basis of payment of taxes in Singapore by observing as under: ... "Before closing, we may briefly touch on one more aspect sought to be raised by the Revenue v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x.' in the state of tax residency but then 'liable to tax' is not the same thing as 'subject to tax'. The confirmation letter of (he IRAS dated 8th November, 2017, relied, upon by the appellant, is misleading to the. extent that it does not mention that the shipping income is not subjected to tax in Singapore because of the exemption granted to shipping companies under sections 13A or 13F of the Singapore Income Tax Act. If the shipping income is liable to tax on accrual basis in Singapore, then the same cannot be said to have accrued or arisen from the source state, which is India. As per section 9(l)(i) of the Income Tax Act in India "all income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in, India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India" shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India". Similarly, for Income Tax purposes in India, as per Section 172(2) of the Act: "amount paid or payable on account of such carriage to the owner or the charterer or to any person on his behalf, whether that amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot leave out material facts germane to decision of the issue and argue that the appellant is subject to tax on its income on accrual basis'. The appellant has not made true and full disclosure of all the material facts that it has availed exemption in Singapore on its shipping income earned in India. It's not just about leaving out a specific detail but not providing the authorities with 'all the information - half truths is lying by to protect self-interests. The factum as to the income was actually exempt from tax in Singapore was sheet anchor to the decision making about applicability of Article 24 of the India Singapore treaty, The appellant has chosen to state facts in the manner suited to the appellant by giving an impression to the appellate authority that the case, of the Appellant is covered under Article 8 of the treaty, whereas, the limitation of relief clause in Article 24 overrides the relief granted in Article 8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore in cases where the shipping profits are not directly remitted to (he state of tax residency as well as subjected to tax. It is a settled legal position that those seeking legal remedies come with cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is remitted to or received (in Singapore) and not by reference to the full amount then the limitation to relief clause is applicable." I am in conformity with the findings of the AG, The double tax treaty avoidance agreement should be interpreted using a purposive rather than a literal approach. The primary purpose of the double tax treaty is to eliminate double tax and prevent the avoidance of tax; the purpose is not therefore to enable the double non-taxation of income. Provisions of Article 24 override the provision of Article 8 of the DTAA between India arid Singapore as they limit the relief in cases of double non-taxation of such income. The conditions mentioned in the limitation of relief clause under Article 24 make it essential for actual remittance of the amount and also that the amount should be subjected to tax in Singapore. In this case the shipping profits received from voyages undertaken by the vessel M.T. Maersk Tianjia have not been subjected to tax in Singapore. As discussed above, the shipping income for following voyages performed by the vessel 'M.T, Maersk. Tianjin do not qualify for tax exemption in India under the provisions of Article 24 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel has also referred decision of LRL Management K/S (as foreign Commercial Manager/Agent of Maersk Tankers Singapore Pvt. Ltd. ) vs. ITO (International Taxation) in ITA No. 756/Rjt/2014 and ITA 276/Rjt/2015 (Rajkot ITAT) page 8 of para 11 of this judgment on the issue that there was no dispute with regard to application to section 144C and the only issue was as to what should be done in cases in which the scheme of section 144C though admittedly applicable to the fact of the case was not adhered to. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 132 taxman 373 (SC) dated 7th Oct, 2003 and also decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Serco BPO (P) Ltd. vs. Authority of Advance Rulings New Delhi (2015) 620 taxman.com 433 (Punjab & Haryana) dated 26th August, 2015 The ld. counsel has vehemently contended that the assessing officer was required to first issue a draft of the proposed order on assessment as per the provisions of section 144C of the act if he proposes to make any variation in the income returned which is prejudicial to the interest of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer has issued NOC to 16 vessels voyages as mentioned above in this order in accordance with the provisions of section 172(3) of the act. The aforesaid agent in India of the assessee has filed vessel voyages return along with relevant document. The assessing officer has initiated proceedings u/s. 172(4) of the act for the 16 vessel voyages. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of benefit for article 8 of the tax treaty by invoking provision of Article 24 stating that the provision of article 24 override the provision of Article 8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore as they limit the relief in cases of double non taxation of such income. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has raised the issue in appeal that without first issuing a draft of the assessment order as is required u/s. 144C of the act, the assessing officer cannot pass a final order u/s. 172(4) of the act, therefore, the assessment made in the case of the assessee is bad in law. It was also submitted that article 24 of the tax treaty does not apply to the case of the assessee as its income is taxable in Singapore on accrual basis not on remittance or rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under section 172(4) can be said to be an 'assessment order' because the requirement of serving a draft order on the assessee is only in respect of an 'assessment order'. Section 144C(1) categorically states that the Assessing Officer is required to "forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee" and thus give an eligible assessee option of approaching the Dispute Resolution Panel before the final assessment order is passed. Unless, therefore, the impugned order passed under section 172(4) can be treated as an 'assessment order', the requirements of Section 144C cannot come into play. 6. This issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Emirates Shipping Line FZE v. Asstt.DIT [2012] 349 ITR 493/211 Taxman 82/23 taxmann.com 400 (Delhi), Hon'ble Delhi High Court had an occasion to adjudicate on the question whether an order passed under section 172(4) can be treated as an assessment order for the purposes of subjecting a completed assessment to reopening under section 147 of the Act. It was in this context that Their Lordships observed held that an order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim before the expiry of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the date of departure of the ship from the Indian port falls, that an assessment according to the provisions of the Act, in a regular manner be made. Thus a right is given to the assessee to opt for a regular assessment although a "rough and ready" or a "summary assessment" has already been made under s. 172(4) of the Act. It is a valuable right. If the assessee exercises the right conferred on him under s. 172(7) of the Act, the ITO is bound to make an assessment of the total income of the previous year of the assessee and the tax payable on the basis thereof "should be determined in accordance with the other provisions of the Act" and any payment made under the section (earlier) "shall be treated as a payment in advance of the tax" leviable for that assessment year and the difference between the sum so paid and the amount of tax found payable by him on such assessment, shall be paid by the assessee or refunded to him. The "ad hoc" assessment made under s. 172(4) of the Act is superseded and a "regular assessment" is made as per the provisions of the Act. In such a case, it is only proper and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in subsection (5),- (a) make such further enquiry, as it thinks fit; or (b) cause any further enquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it. (8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to consider any matter arising o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass the final assessment order as proposed. While, in terms of the provisions of Section 144C(4) and 144C(15), the limitation period for passing the assessment orders gets suitably extended for this exercise so far as the assessment orders under sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 153A etc. are concerned, there is no such enabling provision for extension of limitation period. This aspect of the matter becomes even more significant in case the assessee indeed opts for making a reference to the DRP because in such a case, in order to make the provisions workable, the limitation period for passing the assessment order has to suitably get extended for taking care of the period of time taken by the DRP in adjudicating upon the objections of the assessee and for the period of time taken by the Assessing Officer to give effect to such directions but then there is no provision in the statute for so extending the limitation period so far as the orders under section 172(4) are concerned. The time limit for passing order under section 172(4) is set out in section 172(4A) which provides that, "No order assessing the income and determining the sum of tax payable thereon shall be made under sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n therein must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat i.e., a liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect the intention of the parties. [See Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edition), p. 361, Craies on Statutes (7th Edition) p. 95 and Maxwell on Statutes (11th Edition) p. 221.]" Unless the relaxation on the period of limitation for passing the assessment orders is read as including the relaxation on the period of limitation for all the assessment orders, and the references to Section 153 and 153B as illustrative rather than exhaustive, the provisions of Section 144C cannot be treated as including all the cases of assessment orders, and not merely for assessment orders under sections 143(3) and 153A. The interpretation that relaxation in time limit for passing the assessment orders is only under sections 143(3) and 153A as the intention of Section 144C was only to cover the assessments under sections 143 and 153A will also be contrary to the scheme of the Act as evident from the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill 2009 which clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee in principle that the Assessing Officer ought to have first forwarded him a draft assessment order under section 172(4) before passing the impugned final assessment order under section 172(4), we also hold that the references to Sections 153 and 153B, appearing in Section 144C(4) and 144 C(15), as illustrative rather than exhaustive and in effect, thus, a reference to section 172(4A) is to be read into these provisions as well. We do feel that this kind of a litigation before judicial bodies, i.e. whether or not an assessee is eligible for approaching the DRP in respect of order under section 172(4), could be easily prevented by more thoughtfully drafting the relevant provision. Either it could be made clear, in the stature itself, that the option of DRP is only with reference to a specific type of assessment orders such as under section 143(3) or 153A or the relaxation on time limit for passing the orders, which could be carried before the DRP, could be more general rather than confined to time limit for specific type of orders as in Section 153 or 153B. Of course, time limit under section 172(4A) being set out in Section 153 itself could also achieve that objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the Assessing Officer may have had a bona fide belief that the provisions of Section 144C will not apply to the orders under section 172(4). As a matter of fact, as we have noted earlier in this order, while the scheme of the Act does indicate that an order under section 172(4) is covered by the scheme of Section 144C, the provisions of Section 144C(4) and 144C(15) do not indicate corresponding references. There is, thus, clearly an element of wholly avoidable ambiguity in the phraseology employed in Section 144C, which is in sharp contrast with the fact situation being dealt with in the judicial precedents cited before us. The subject matter of dispute before us is not as to what is the consequence of not issuing a draft assessment order, when it was admittedly required to be issued on the facts of a case, but whether such a draft order was required to be issued in the first place. In such a situation and the relevant material facts being qualitatively different, in our considered view, it would meet the ends of justice that we hold that draft order was required to be issued in this case, and, for enabling the Assessing Officer for follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing fresh assessment under section 172(4). The above observations made in LR2 Management K/S (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis in these cases as well, and while deciding the matter in remanded proceedings, the Assessing Officer will also take into account LR2 Management K/S (supra) decision, to the extent relevant, on merits. While we appreciate erudite arguments of the learned counsel, particularly with respect to double non taxation, we are of the considered view that our dealing with such foundational aspects directly at this stage will deprive this adjudication of the proper departmental perspective on the same. The assessee will, however, be at liberty to raise all these issues in the remanded proceedings. With these observations, the matter stands restored to the file of the Assessing Officer." In the above cited decision, the Co-ordinate Bench was of the view that the Assessing Officer ought to have first forwarded a draft assessment order under section 172(4) before passing the final assessment order under section 174(4) holding that the reference to sections 153 and 153B appearing in section 144(C)(4) and 144C(15) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
