9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is directed towards the assessment order is also, in our view, an untenable submission for the reason that the assessment order is framed qua an assessee . In this case, the assessee was Monet Ltd. and before exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act, notice would have to be issued to Monet Ltd. and in some cases (where principal, perhaps, is not found available) to its agent by exercising powers under Section 163 of the Act. In this particular case, the record shows that it is not the appellant s/revenue s assertion that Monet Ltd. was not available. The record, however, indicated, as alluded to above, that Monet Ltd. had ceased to exist, therefore, the submission that the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceptions. CM APPL. 57566/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal] 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.1 According to Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 114 days. 3. Ms Snigdha Gautam, counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she would have no objection if the delay is condoned. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms ITA 610/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 6. Via the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016-17. The Return of Income (ROI) qua which the aforementioned assessment order was framed was filed on 28.09.2016. Importantly, insofar as the LTCG amounting to Rs. 10,02,92,15,510/- was concerned, Monet Ltd. claimed exemption by taking recourse to Article 13 of India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [in short, India-Mauritius DTAA ]. 9. The record shows that before framing the assessment order dated 12.12.2018, Monet Ltd. s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, a notice dated 18.07.2017 was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ]. However, thereafter the aforementioned assessment order dated 12.12.2018 was passed, whereby the ROI filed by Monet Ltd. was accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal which impelled the appellant/revenue to prefer the instant appeal. 13. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal s conclusion is based on two principal grounds. (i) First, the order under Section 263 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was passed against the respondent/assessee i.e., Cairnhill CIPEF Ltd. and Cairnhill CGPE Ltd., when Monet Ltd. had already ceased to exist. As noticed above, Monet Ltd. ceased to exist on 19.12.2018. (ii) Second, the order under Section 163 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 was passed by the Commissioner, who, according to the Tribunal, did not have the requisite authority. 14. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal took note of the provision of Section 246A, which is a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within its sway and, therefore, even if Monet Ltd. ceased to exist, the CIT had the power to revise the assessment order dated 12.12.2018. 17. Having heard Mr Kumar, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept any of the submissions made hereinabove. Although one cannot quibble with the submission made by Mr Kumar that the CIT exercises powers which are concurrent to that of the AO, the fundamental issue which arises for consideration is whether the CIT could have exercised powers against the respondent/assessee i.e., Cairnhill CIPEF Ltd. when the principal had ceased to exist. Concededly, as noticed by us, Monnet Ltd. ceased to exist on 19.12.2018, whereas, the CIT exercised its revisionary power much later i.e., on 31.03.2021. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
