9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on a wholly erroneous view of the aforesaid amount constituting the income of the assessee. Regard must be had to the fact that the Department of Mines and Geology had merely provided to the AO the total amount paid by the petitioner for obtaining mining rights in the e-auctions which were conducted. The said amount clearly cannot be countenanced to be the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. The income of the assessee would only be that which was garnered from the sale of iron ore and other non-ferrous metals. The fact of INR 167,75,60,000/- representing the amounts paid by the petitioner for earning mining rights alone could not be disputed by Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Notice u/s 148 set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Ms. Disha Jham, Ms. Soumya Singh, Mr. Rishabh Malhotra, Mr. Devansh Jain Mr. Raghav Dutt, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhvi Shukla, Ms. Priya Mr. Sudharshan Roy, Advs. ORDER PER 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived from department of mines and geology. As per the information received the details of iron ore e auction during F.Y. 2011-12 is as follows:- xxxx xxxx xxxx 3. Analysis of information collected/ received: 3.1 As per the information collected following details can be very well seen. A letter u/s 133 (6) was issued to assessee Vedanta Ltd. (earlier known as Sesa Goa Ltd,). The Iron Ore of the assessee was E-auctioned by the Monitoring Committee during FY 2011-12. The E-auction receipts are at Rs. 167,75,60,000/-. 2/9/2011 has appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to oversee E-auction of Iron Ore from Karnataka. The CEC in turn has formed a Monitoring Committee to carry out the order of the Supreme Court. In this backdrop the details of the Iron Ore E-auctioned by the Monitoring Committee was obtained. (2) As per the details furnished by the Department of Mines 7 Geology, the E-auction receipts pertaining to the assessee for FY 2011-12 are at Rs. 167,75,60,000/-. The auction wise receipts are as per the Annexure-l enclosed to this report. (3) Letter dated 21/02/2019 was issued to the assessee calling for details of Iron Ore E-auctioned during FY 2011-12, details of sales s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done by you in iron ore sale. You are also required to submit all the necessary documents/confirmation which could determine genuinity and credibility of such transactions. Also you are required to submit as to how decision was taken to auction these iron ores alongwith documentary proof, if any available with you. Also furnish copy as to how much receipts did department of mines and geology get after auctioning of these ores. The details are mentioned below:- xxxx xxxx xxxx Therefore a comprehensive notice u/s 133 (6) has been provided to assessee. The assessee was also asked to submit all the documents to submitted by assessee during assessment proceedings with regard to these information. The assessee replied as follows:- Similar information already called by ADIT(C IC)-2, Bangalore, we filed all details required and copy of the same enclosed for your ready reference, Thus assessee has submitted the same reply as submitted to ADIT(C IC)-2, Bangalore, And the same letter with findings done by office of (C IC)-2, Bangalore has been forwarded to this office, Further, assessee has also not complied clearly with point D notice u/s 133 (6). The point D notice u/s 133 (6) is being rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Limited. It is stated to be a company duly incorporated and engaged in the activity of mining iron ore and non-ferrous metals as well as power generation. 7. On 26 August 2011, the Supreme Court while considering W.P.(C) 562/2009, imposed a ban on mining activities in various districts of Karnataka and also commanded the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] to devise a methodology for sale and transportation of stock already mined by various licensees. The duty of selling the entire iron ore or stock mined and generated within Karnataka was thereafter entrusted to a Monitoring Committee, which was to undertake the sale and distribution thereof through the e-auction mode. This methodology was created in terms of an order dated 23 September 2011 passed by the Supreme Court in the aforenoted proceedings. 8. According to the admitted position which emanates from the notice issued by the respondents themselves, the petitioner appears to have participated in various e-auctions conducted by the Department of Mines and Geology and submitted bid amounts totalling INR 167,75,60,000/- in F.Y. 2011-12. 9. For the year in question, namely A.Y. 2012-13, the petitioner submitted a Return of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid disclosures appear to have been duly accepted in the assessment order which ultimately came to be drawn on 27 February 2017. 13. Reverting then to the notice under Section 148, it is manifest that the e-auction bid amount of INR 167,75,60,000/- is what has been taken note of by the respondents as constituting the income of the petitioner for the relevant A.Y. It is the aforesaid premise which is assailed by Mr. Jolly, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, who submits that the aforementioned sum was not the revenue earned by the petitioner-assessee from the sale of iron ore and other non-ferrous metals which may have been mined or extracted but the bid amount which was submitted to the Department of Mines and Geology for the purposes of acquiring the right to mine. According to Mr. Jolly, the figure of INR 160,93,69,639/- correctly represents the sales and revenue generated from mining activity and which had been duly disclosed by the petitioner. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that learned counsel contends that the assumption that a sum of INR 6,81,90,364/- constituted undisclosed income is thoroughly misconceived and the reassessment action thus liable to be q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
