9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner seeks the following substantive relief by instituting this petition:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature Certiorari or any other Writ or Order or direction calling for the records of the case from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and upon examining the legality, propriety and reasonability of the impugned Draft Order No. ITBA/AST/F/144C/2022-23/1048245351 (1) dared 26/12/2022 passed u/s 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (copy being marked Exhibit 'C' hereto) issued by the Respondent No. 1 and so also the impugned Order No. 105/DRP-1/BNG/2022-23 dared 29/09/2023, passed by the Respondent No. 2 her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the petitioner had initially filed tax returns on 14.03.2022 based on the premise that he was a resident of India. He submits that based on these returns, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,43,455/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty-Five only). He submits that the petitioner will only claim for this refund and not claim for the refund of Rs. 62,69,263/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Three only) in terms of the revised return, which was inter alia based on the premise that the petitioner was a non-resident in India. 6. Ms Linhares, learned Standing Counsel contests Mr Naik's contentions. She submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 9. After about three days, i.e. on the petitioner filed a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act, this time claiming the status of "non-resident" and declaring a total income of Rs. 2,55,94,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Five Lakhs Ninety-Four thousand only). By the revised return, the petitioner only claimed a refund of Rs. 62,69,263/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Three). 10. Based on the original and the revised return filed by the petitioner, correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the department. Finally, on 20.12.2022, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to submit certain documents on or before 26.12.2022, failing which the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule on the issue of jurisdiction since the petitioner now claimed that he was not the eligible assessee as defined under Section of the IT Act. 15. The DRP (Respondent no. 2), by the impugned order dated 29.09.2023, rejected the petitioner's objections and maintained the Draft Order. Hence, this Petition. 16. Section 144C of the Income Tax Act is concerned with reference to DRP. Sub-clause 15 of Section 144C is relevant, and the same reads as follows: "(15) For the purposes of this section, - (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three [Principal Commissioners or] Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee " means - (i) any person in whose case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld as an "eligible assessee" as defined under Section 144C(15) of the IT Act. If the petitioner is not an eligible assessee, then there is no question of applying the procedure under Section 144C to the petitioner. 21. In Pankaj Extrusion Limited (supra), the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in somewhat similar circumstances held that on a plain reading of clause (b) of sub-section 15 of Section 144C, it would be evident that an assessee can be stated to be the eligible assessee as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 144 C in whose case the variation arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92CA. Since, in the said case, there was no such variation in income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the AO (Circle-I), Panaji Goa, is to be accepted or not. Mr Naik submits that the particulars disclosed therein are correct, but Ms Linhares submits that they are incorrect. 25. At this stage, we cannot go into the above controversy. The AO (Circle-I), Panaji-Goa, will now have to assess the original return dared 14.03.2022 in terms of Section 143(1) or other relevant provisions of the IT Act and make an appropriate assessment order in accordance with law on the said return. Since we had granted interim relief in this matter, the same will protect the Assessing Officer in so far as the issue of limitation is concerned. 26. The above clarification is because the Petitioner, based on the claim made in his revised return, which cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
