TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal filed by the assessee on 23/12/2016 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act and the DRP has further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO since the notice issued under Section 148 of the act is not valid. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in proposing, and the DRP has further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO, that the appellant had entered into turnkey projects and as such to be assessed on the gross turnover and the net taxable income be estimated at 26.92% of such gross turnover. 3. On the facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant period, it was engaged in the fabrication and installation of onshore and offshore platforms and submarine pipelines. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 28/11/2003 declaring total income of Rs. 27,81,660/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was completed on 29/03/2005 at total income of Rs. 29,16,189/-, which was rectified under Section 154 of the Act at Rs. 23,44,528/-. Subsequently, case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2010. In response, the assessee submitted vide letter dated 05/05/2010 to treat the original return filed by the assessee, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the above facts, the Ld. DRP observed that even though the original assessment in this case was made under section 143(3) of the Act and more than four years had elapsed on the day of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, the case could not be said to be covered by the proviso to section 147 as the assessee had not disclosed all the material facts. The assessee also pleaded that in the reasons recorded the AO has mentioned assessment year 2002-03, whereas the assessment year involved is 2003-04 and thus the reasons to believe the escapement of income were recorded mechanically by the Assessing Officer. This contention of the assessee was also rejected by the Ld. DRP holding that contracts which were executed during the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the detailed arguments held that reasons recorded does not indicate that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and consequently quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of notice under section 148 of the Act were held as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel submitted that reassessment proceeding in the year under consideration also deserve to be quashed. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee failed to disclose the material facts truly and fully and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer of reopeni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the court finds that the Assessing Officer committed a manifest error in reopening the assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. 40. For the reasons stated above, the notice dated 31st March, 2009 issued under Section 148 of the Act does not comply with proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded do not indicate that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and is quashed. The proceedings initiated in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be executed since the final assessment order and the notice of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 and assessment year 2008-09. 4.1 Learned CIT(DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities. 4.2 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA 143/2013 and ITA 144/2013 for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively has clearly held that assessee did not have a PE in India. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "53. In view of our conclusion that the Assessee did not have a permanent establishment in India, the question of attributing any income of the Assessee to the PE does not arise. However, the ITAT has erroneously held that the Assessee ha....