TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed u/s 144C(1) ignoring the fact that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee offered the above income sue moto for taxation @ 10% and that the assessee had disclosed other income of Rs. 11,75,89,902/- and had taxed the same @ 10% and that the AO had applied 25% plus SC & EC which was applicable for the relevant period u/s 115A(1) of the Act. Since the variation in the income/loss was not prejudicial to the interest of the assessee as prescribed in section 144C(1), no draft assessment order was required to be passed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition ignoring the fact that in this case the draft order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) was not required to be passed since the criteria mentioned in the provisions of section 144C(1) are not fulfilled in this case. 4. The assessee in CO No.54/PUN/2018 has raised the following grounds of objections:- 1. The Assessee contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in applying an incorrect rate of tax at 25% (plus surcharge and education cess) u/s 115A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the income offered to tax by the assessee, instead of the correct tax at the rate of 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 115A(1) of the Act along with surcharge and education cess. Thus, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 62,12,060/- and by assessing the assessee's total income at Rs. 12,38,01,862/- 7. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was foreign company and hence, was 'eligible assessee' under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. The CIT(A) further noted that the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 62,12,060/- and assessed the income in the hands of assessee at Rs. 12.38 crores and along with assessment order, had also issued demand notice under section 156 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that hence the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was final assessment order and not draft assessment order. The CIT(A) was of the view that the Assessing Officer ought to have passed draft assessment order first, in accordance with provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, before passing final assessment order. Since the Assessing Officer had failed to do so and hence, the assessee was denied the opportunity to defend against the addition made by Assessing Officer, before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subsidiary i.e. Cosma International (India) Pvt. Ltd. The assessee offered the same to tax vide written submissions filed on 11.01.2016 during assessment proceedings. The case of assessee before us is that the said income was offered before any questionnaire seeking information was issued. The Assessing Officer issued the questionnaire on 01.03.2016, for which reply was filed on 08.03.2016. The Assessing Officer then informed the assessee that since return of income was filed on 25.03.2015, the rate of income was amended in the Act from 10% to 25% w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and hence, the income is to be assessed @ 25% plus surcharge and cess. The plea of assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the amendment increasing tax rate to 25% would apply only to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years; whereas the appeal under assessment was assessment year 2013-14. As the assessee was Resident of Canada and as per the benefits under Canada-India Income Tax Convention (Treaty), the rate which prescribed was 15%. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting the plea of assessee issued assessment order and applied rate of 25% to the income of assessee instead of 10%. The assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 12,38,01,862/-. The Assessing Officer has assessed the aforesaid income in the hands of assessee under section 143(3) of the Act. In such facts and circumstances, variation in the income is not on account of any addition made by the Assessing Officer but is on account of voluntary offer of additional income by the assessee and it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has made variation in the income returned, which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. The variation in the income is qualified by the words which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. 14. In the facts of present case, addition, if any is made to the returned income is on account of suo motu offer by the assessee of the receipts received by the assessee during the year under consideration from an Indian entity and by an inadvertent error, the same were not offered in the return of income. So, it does fail the test of prejudicial to interest of assessee. Hence, there is no merit in the order of CIT(A) in quashing the assessment order. The same is thus, reversed. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus, allowed. 15. Now, coming to the next aspect of the issue which is rais....