TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....') for AY:2008-09, on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT erred in initiating proceedings/ assuming jurisdiction/ exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT erred in holding that the assessment order dated 28 March 2013 (erroneously mentioned by the learned CIT as 29 November 2012) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in so far as the genuineness of the source of share application money credited in the books of accounts is concerned. 3. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that Section 68 of the Act has no application to facts of the case at hand. 4. The learned CIT erred in holding that ingredients of Section 68 of the Act remained unproved in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT erred in holding that the assessment order was passed in a summary manner without considering the relevant aspects, details, making proper enquires and without any application of mind. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to establish the identity, genuineness, creditworthiness, nature, mode and source of the transaction with reference to increase in share capital during the year under consideration. It was further observed by the A.O that though the assessee had increased its Reserves and Surplus during the year under consideration by an amount of 179,79,71,200/-, however, no evidence was filed on record which could enable the A.O to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction with reference to the increase in the Reserves and Surplus during the year under consideration. It was further gathered by the A.O that though the assessee had during the year under consideration increased its Current liabilities from Rs. 42,40,78,321/- to Rs. 264,42,29,879/-, however, the assessee had failed to come forth with a full and true disclosure in respect of the nature, mode and source of the current liabilities amounting to Rs. 264,42,29,879/-. The A.O inter alia for the said reasons, holding a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, therefore, reopened the its case under Sec. 147 of the 'Act'. 4. That a perusal of the 'reasons to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and set out the details of the conspiracy hatched by the accused which had resulted in loss to the public exchequer. The A.O deliberating on the facts before him, observed that in furtherance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court monitored investigation, in or about August 2011, the CIT-V, Mumbai had received a secret/confidential communication containing factual report from the Directorate of Income-Tax investigations, New Delhi, on the basis of investigations carried out by the said directorate, naming the petitioner as being involved in the transactions having tax implications, which were required to be verified by the assessing officers by carrying out further verifications/ investigations by initiating necessary action, as deemed fit under the Income Tax Act. It was thus stated by the A.O that in the background of the aforesaid development and information obtained there from, and in order to assist in the Hon'ble Supreme Court monitored investigations, a Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. 6. Be that as it may, the primary issue for reopening of the case of the assessee was to deliberate on the nature, mode and source of the amount involved in the transaction of Rs. 700 cror....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had received the funds from ECHL as share application money towards subscription of shares, no interest was payable." 7. The A.O deliberating on the aforesaid reply of the assessee, observed that the assessee had advanced a sum of Rs. 700 crores to Loop Telecom Limited in order to secure a business deal entered into with the said company for providing passive Infrastructure facility and maintenance services in all the 21 circles allotted to it. The A.O while enquiring into the source of the Share application money, as per the information provided by the assessee, resorted to getting the same verified by making a reference to the Mauritius Revenue Authorities through the Foreign Tax and Tax Research (for short 'FT & TR') division of the CBDT, under the provisions of the relevant Articles dealing with "Exchange of Information" of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between the said countries, i.e Mauritius and India. The A.O further referred to the flow of inter company funds which were received by the assessee and advanced to Loop Telecom Ltd., as under: ECHL, Mauritius ETLPL(Assessee) LTL Cr. Dr. (Paid to LTL) 10.01.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest of the revenue, thus, vide his Show Cause Notice (for short 'SCN'), dated 09.09.2014, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the same may not be revised under Sec. 263 of the 'Act'. The reason seeking for revision of the reassessment order by the CIT, to the extent the same survives and had been assailed before us, pertains to the transaction involving verification of the source of payment of an amount of Rs. 700 crores by the assessee to Loop Telecom Limited, was on the following grounds: (i) The amount of Rs. 726 crores which was claimed by the assessee company to have been received as share application money from ECHL was not disclosed by the assessee in the relevant part of the balance sheet explaining the source of funds. (ii) That as it was the claim of the assessee before the A.O, that an amount of Rs. 726 crores was received from ECHL, a Mauritius based company, on account of share application money, therefore, the A.O in order to verify the international money trail and the source of money, had thus in the course of the reassessment proceedings made a reference vide letter dated 22.11.2012 to the Jt. Secretary, FT&TR Division, CBDT, New D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment in equity shares. 4. USD 70409257 09.01.2008 Investment in equity shares.(out of USD 100,000,000 remitted, shares for USD 70,409,257 were allotted and the balance money was refunded by ETIPL. (vi) That neither the source of receipt of share application money received by the assessee from ECHL was properly explained by the assessee, nor the same could be gathered from the information received by the A.O from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities. There was also no evidence as to how the money was acquired by EGL. 10. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid reasons the CIT held a strong conviction that the action of the A.O in treating the sources of money claimed by the assessee to have been received from ECHL as properly explained while passing the reassessment order, was backed up absence of any evidence about the source and capacity of the persons giving the money and the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT further observed that as the money credited in the books of account of the assessee and the capacity of the persons giving the money and genuineness of the transaction were neither verified by the A.O nor proved to his satisfaction, therefore, the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 12. That in the meantime the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was transferred from the CIT-8, Mumbai to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai (for short Principal CIT). The Principal CIT after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the facts borne from the record, however, did not find favour with the same and concluded that the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated. 28.03.2013 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, on the following grounds: (i) That the original assessment which was earlier completed by the A.O vide order passed by him under Sec. 143(3), dated. 29.12.2010, was reopened under Sec. 147, primarily for the reason that the information received from the DGIT(Inv),New Delhi, revealed that the source of investments made by the assessee by way of advances given to Loop Telecom Limited was not properly examined/verified by the A.O while framing the assessment. Thus, as the primary issue which had weighed in the mind of the A.O while reopening the concluded assessment of the assessee was to ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, neither the details as regards the same were made available on the record by the assessee during the course of the reassessment proceedings, nor were enquired into by the A.O. 13. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts it was observed by the Principal CIT that as the A.O had not examined the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities, therefore, the same had remained unverified and not subject to any enquiry by him while passing the reassessment order. It was further observed by the Principal CIT that the Authorised representative for the assessee had during the course of the revision proceedings categorically admitted before him that neither the A.O had during the course of the reassessment proceedings raised any specific queries as regards the alleged funds received from EGL, nor any such details were furnished by the assessee on its own with the A.O. The Principal CIT observed that it was for the very first time during the course of the revision proceedings before him, that the assessee had vide its letter dated 15.12.2015 placed on record a copy of the letter dated. 12.11.2014 received from ECHL, wherein the latter had confirmed the investment of US....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A.O without proper application of mind, rendered the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, in the backdrop of his aforesaid conviction, the Principal CIT set aside the reassessment order with a direction to the A.O to pass a fresh order, as per law, after making necessary enquiries and investigations and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. Aggrieved, the assessee had assailed the order passed by the Principal CIT under Sec. 263 of the 'Act', before us. The Authorised representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee Sh. Porus F. Kaka, the ld. Senior Counsel, took us through the 'SCN', dated. 09.09.2014 that was issued by the Principal CIT. The ld. A.R taking us through Page No. 3 of the 'SCN', submitted that out of the amounts mentioned, it was only the disbursement made on 09.01.2008 towards investment in equity shares of USD 70,409,257 (out of the remitted amount of 100,000,000) which pertained to the year under consideration, while for all the other amounts were not relatable to the year under consideration. The ld. A.R submitted that the Principal CIT had initiated the revision proceedings un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t during the course of the revision proceedings it was submitted before the CIT that though the copies of the order sheets and letter dated 18.03.2013 received by the Foreign Tax & Research Division, CBDT ('FTD') from the Mauritius Tax Authorities were received by the assessee, however, the copies of certain other documents, viz. (i). the letters written by the A.O to the 'FTD' to seek details from the Mauritius Tax Authorities (including letter dated 22.11.2012 and reminder dated. 05.03.2013); (ii). the letter written by FTD to Mauritius Tax Authorities; and (iii). the letter written by the FTD to the A.O with respect to the response received from the Mauritius Tax Authorities, alongwith the date of receipt of the same by the A.O were however not made available. The ld. A.R further drew our attention to the copy of the resolutions each dated. 28.05.2008 pertaining to the allotment of 10000000 equity shares and 45500000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each by the assessee company to Essar Communication Holding Ltd (ECHL), at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share. The ld. A.R further took us through the copy of the letter dated. 18.03.2013 which was received by the Joint Secretary (FT & TR-II) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s advance from ECHL for investment in equity shares of the assessee company was established beyond any scope of doubt. 17. The ld. A.R took us through the operative part of the order passed by the Principal CIT. The ld. A.R submitted that the concluded assessment of the assessee that was framed by the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated. 29.12.2010, was reopened on the ground that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts in respect of the nature, mode and source of the amount of Rs. 700 crores which was advanced by the assessee to Loop Telecom Limited. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was averred by the ld. A.R that the revision proceedings had been embarked upon by the Principal CIT on the ground that the A.O had failed to verify the source of the share application money of Rs. 726 crores received from ECHL (i.e the amount out of which Rs. 700 crores was paid to Loop Telecom Limited). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that it was beyond comprehension that now when the concluded assessment was reopened for verifying the nature, mode and source of the share application money received by the assessee (f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.03.2013 by the Joint Secretary (FT&TR) Division, CBDT, New Delhi, from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, it could safely be gathered that the source of the share application money received by the assessee company from ECHL was found to be well in order. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention took us through a letter dated. 13.08.2014, which we find is a letter addressed by the CIT-5, Mumbai to the CIT-8, Mumbai, while transferring the assessment folder of the assessee to the latters office. That in the aforesaid letter it was stated by the CIT-5, Mumbai that a perusal of the report received from Mauritius Revenue Authority revealed that there was no adverse report in respect of receipt of share application money by the assessee from ECHL, the source of which was the amounts received from EGL. The ld. A.R drew our attention to the observation of the CIT-5, Mumbai, wherein the latter had advised the CIT-8, Mumbai, that in the absence of any adverse report from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, there was no necessity of making addition in the year under consideration or reopening of the case of the assessee for the earlier years. The ld. A.R in the backdrop of the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by whatever name called, would bring the assessee company within the sweep of Sec. 68 in respect of the said amount. It was averred by the ld. A.R that as the first proviso had prospectively been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f 01.04.2013, therefore, the same would not be applicable to the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2008-09. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his contention that the first proviso of Sec. 68 is to be given a prospective effect, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-1 v. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1613 of 2014; dated. 20.03.2017) (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the proviso of Sec. 68 which was introduced vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 1st April, 2013, would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards. Alternatively, the ld. A.R further submitted that the said first proviso would only be applicable where the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of account of the assessee company is a 'resident'. Thus, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that for both of the aforesaid reasons the first proviso would not be applicable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional power cannot be invoked by the CIT for directing a fuller enquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous, if a view had already been taken by the A.O after enquiry. The ld. A.R taking support from the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -III v. Nirav Modi [2016] 71 taxmann.com272 (Bombay)submitted that where the A.O after making detailed enquiries in respect of certain cash credits appearing in the books of account of the assessee, took a view that the assessee had duly proved the identity, source and creditworthiness of the parties and accepted the genuineness of the transaction, the CIT without indicating any doubt as regards the genuineness of the evidence produced by the assessee could not revise the order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263. The ld. A.R further taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, submitted that if during the course of the assessment proceedings queries were raised by the A.O and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an assessment order does not mention the same, it would not mean that the A.O had not applied his mind to the issues. In the bac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt of share application money by the assessee from ECHL, the source of which was the amounts received from EGL. The CIT-5,Mumbai, in his said letter had advised the CIT-8,Mumbai, that in the absence of any adverse report from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, there was no necessity for making addition in the year under consideration or reopening of the earlier years in the case of the assessee. (iv) That no observation had been recorded by the Principal CIT, which contradicts the information provided by the assessee or the Mauritius Revenue Authorities. (v) That the first proviso of Sec. 68 which had been made available on the statute vide the Finance act, 2012, with prospective effect from 01.04.2013, was not applicable to the case of the assessee for three reasons, viz. (i). the proviso which was applicable prospectively w.e.f 01.04.2013, thus, would not apply to the case of the assessee; (ii). the proviso was applicable only where the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of the company is a 'resident', thus, on the said count also was not applicable to the case of the assessee as the share subscriber, viz. ECHL was a resident of Mauritus ;a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that the ld. A.R for the assessee had assailed the validity of the order passed by the Principal CIT on multiple grounds. Per contra, it is the case of the ld. D.R that the Principal CIT after deliberating on the records of the assessee, therein finding that the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3) on 29.12.2010 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, had thus rightly revised the order in exercise of the powers vested with him under Sec. 263. 25. We shall now advert to and deal with the multiple objections that had been raised by the ld. A.R before us while assailing the validity of the order of revision passed by the Principal CIT under Sec. 263, as under:- (i) The ld A.R had at the very outset submitted before us that the concluded original assessment of the assessee, which was framed by the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated. 29.12.2010, was reopened on the ground that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pened assessment are no exception. We are of the considered view that an order passed by the A.O in a reopened assessment is equally amenable for revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of the powers vested with him under Sec. 263, as a first time assessment order passed in the course of a regular assessment would be. We are of the view that this objection raised by the ld. A.R would loose all relevance, once on the deliberation of the facts by us herein below, it emerges that the reassessment order passed by the A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. (ii) The ld. A.R had further averred before us that the first proviso of Sec. 68 which was made available on the statute vide the Finance act, 2012, with prospective effect from 01.04.2013, was not applicable to the case of the assessee for three reasons, viz. (i). the proviso which was applicable prospectively w.e.f 01.01.04.2013, thus, would not apply to the case of the assessee; (ii). the proviso was applicable only where the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of the company is a 'resident', thus, on the said count also was not applicable to the case of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received as an advance from ECHL for making investment in its equity shares. We find that the Principal CIT while verifying the fact as to whether the assessee had discharged the onus as stood cast upon it, had strictly confined himself to the basic scheme of Sec. 68. We are of the considered view that the Principal CIT being well within his jurisdiction, had after necessary deliberations observed that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus as stood cast upon it under Sec. 68. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contention of the ld. A.R as regards the non-applicability of the first proviso of Sec. 68 to its case, and being of the considered view that as the same does not emerge from the order of lower authorities, therefore, our indulgence for adjudicating the same does not arise. We thus decline to admit the aforesaid contention of the ld. A.R (iii) The ld. A.R had further submitted before us that as per the settled position of law, in a case where share application money is received by a company from alleged bogus shareholders, who had been identified, there the department though remains well within its jurisdiction to reopen the individual assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mature. We find that our indulgence in the present appeal had been sought only for adjudicating as to whether the Principal CIT in exercise of the powers as stood vested with him under Sec. 263, was right in law and well within his jurisdiction in revising the reassessment order that was passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated.28.03.2013, or not. We are of the considered view that our scope of adjudication has to remain strictly confined for adjudicating the validity of the order of revision passed by the Principal CIT under Sec. 263. We are afraid that the contention of the ld. A.R that the amount of the share application money received by the assessee company in light of the aforesaid settled position of law could not be assessed as the undisclosed income of the assessee company, is absolutely premature. That as observed by us hereinabove, we are confined to adjudication of the validity of the order of revision passed under Sec. 263 by the Principal CIT, which had been assailed before us. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid contention raised by the ld. A.R before us, does not have any bearing on the adjudication of the validity of the order passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails with the A.O in respect of the amount of USD 185 million, which as claimed by the assessee was the share application money received by it from ECHL. The ld. A.R by taking us through the various replies which were filed with the CIT in reply to the 'SCN' issued to it, viz. replies dated 16.10.2014 and 15.12.2014, had thus submitted that exhaustive details in respect of the share application money were called for by the A.O during the course of the reassessment proceedings, which were duly made available on his record by the assessee. We find that as claimed by the ld. A.R, the assessee had during the course of the reassessment proceedings furnished details of the shareholders (name, address and percentage holding), details of subscribers of the share capital, number of shares, amount of share capital, amount of securities premium, copies of the resolutions, each dated. 28.05.2008, pertaining to the allotment of 10000000 equity shares and 45500000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each by the assessee company to Essar Communication Holding Ltd (ECHL) at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share etc. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that details of the share application money received by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid facts which had emerged for the very first time from the information received from the Mauritius Tax Authorities on 28.03.2013, was neither examined nor verified by the A.O, who had already framed the reassessment vide his order passed under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3), on the same date. We further find that as observed by the Principal CIT during the course of the revision proceedings, the Authorised representative for the assessee had categorically admitted before him that neither the A.O had during the course of the reassessment proceedings raised any specific queries as regards the alleged funds received from EGL, nor any such details were furnished by the assessee on its own to the A.O during the course of the said reassessment proceedings. We further find that the Principal CIT had in his order of revision observed that it was for the very first time during the course of the revision proceedings before him, that the assessee had vide its letter dated 15.12.2015 placed on record a copy of the letter dated. 12.11.2014 received from ECHL, wherein the latter had confirmed the investment of USD 185 million towards subscription of shares of the assessee alongwith the source of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for making of investment in the equity of the assessee company, as gathered from the records, is stated to be the amount belonging to EGL, wherein while for an amount of USD 100 million is stated to have been directly received by the assessee from EGL on behalf of EHCL, while for the balance amount of USD 85 million was also received by ECHL from EGL. We thus are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the directions of the Principal CIT to the A.O to also make necessary verifications as regards the amounts received from EGL, which as observed by us hereinabove to the extent of USD 100 million happens to be the first or immediate source of the amount received by the assessee, therefore, cannot be faulted with. Be that as it may, in the backdrop of the aforesaid state of facts, we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the ld. A.R that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had embarked into verification of the sources of the source from which the amount of USD 185 million was received by the assessee. (v) We now advert to the core issue on the basis of which the Principal CIT had revised the reassessment order passed by the A.O under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Avoidance Agreement". The A.O at whose behest the very process of verification of the claim of the assessee that the amount of USD 185 million credited in its books of account during the year was the share application money received from ECHL, was triggered, realizing that there was delay on the part of the Mauritius Revenue Authority in furnishing its report, therefore, issued a reminder on 05.03.2013 for obtaining the information. The Principal CIT observed that the information was received by the A.O only as on 28.03.2013, which was the date on which the A.O had passed the reassessment order under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the 'Act'. We find that it was observed by the Principal CIT that as the A.O had passed the reassessment order without waiting for and examining the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities, therefore, the failure on the part of the A.O to wait for, examine and verify the aforesaid information which was called for by the A.O himself, therefore, due to the non-verification of the nature and source of the amount of USD 185 million by the A.O, on the said count itself rendered the reassessment order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the assessee before him during the course of the revision proceedings, neither any details as regards the same were made available on the record by the assessee during the course of the reassessment proceedings, nor was the same enquired into by the A.O. We find that the Principal CIT, on the basis of his aforesaid observations had concluded that as the A.O had not examined the information received from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities, therefore, the same had remained unverified and not subject to any enquiry by him while passing the reassessment order. Thus, in the backdrop of his aforesaid observations, it was concluded by the Principal CIT that the non-verification and non application of mind by the A.O rendered the reassessment order passed by him under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. (vii) We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us. We find that as observed by us hereinabove, the original assessment which was framed by the A.O vide his order p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced on record by the assessee, realizing well that the said claim of the assessee could not be summarily accepted on the very face of it, had thus made a reference vide letter dated. 22.11.2012 to the Jt. Secretary, FT & TR Division, CBDT, New Delhi, requesting that the information may be obtained from the revenue authorities in Mauritius under the specific articles dealing with 'Exchange of Information' as per the terms of the India-Mauritius "Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement", as regards the aforesaid claim of the assessee. We thus are of the considered view that the importance of the verification of the aforesaid claim of the assessee in respect of the source of the amount of USD 185 million, was well recognized by the A.O. We further find that as the necessary information was not forthcoming, therefore, the A.O who had triggered the seeking of the said information from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities, being well aware of the fact that the said information was indispensably required to facilitate verification of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, therefore, issued a reminder on 05.03.2013 for obtaining the information. Now, interestingly it can safely be gathered that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received by it was by way of share application money from ECHL. We thus are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it can safely be concluded that the reassessment order passed by the A.O was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We are of the considered view that as observed by us hereinabove, that as the A.O who had himself triggered the seeking of the aforesaid information from the Mauritius Revenue Authority, which was followed by a reminder from him, was however most surprisingly aborted without any rhyme and reason, therefore, it can safely and rather inescapably be concluded that he had absolutely failed to examine the report received from the Mauritius Revenue Authority and thus failed to examine the veracity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee as regards the source of the amount of USD 185 million. We are persuaded to be in agreement with the Principal CIT that the A.O while passing the reassessment order had summarily accepted the claim of the assessee as regards the source of the amount of USD 185 million without making any verification as regards the same, therefore, is clearly a case of non-application of mind by the ....