TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s matter. 2. This Appeal was clubbed along with several writ petitions and tax appeals, including Tax Appeal No.83/2015. By an order dated 19th September, 2017, Rule was issued in the writ petitions and the tax appeals were admitted on the substantial questions of law set out in the said order. As many as six substantial questions of law were in fact framed. 3. Mr. Ramani, the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant, however, submits that none of the substantial questions of law as framed, really arise in the present Appeal. He submitted that this Court, in terms of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) has sufficient powers to frame substantial questions of law which arise in the matter, even at the stage of fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, we frame the aforesaid substantial questions of law and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, proceed to consider the same. 6. The Appellant-Assessee filed returned of income on 30/09/2008 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Since some element of Transfer Pricing was involved, the case of the Appellant was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in terms of Section 92CA of the IT Act. 7. The TPO made an order dated 31/10/2011, determining the arm's length price in respect of certain transactions relating to imports and exports. Based thereon, the Assessing Officer (AO) made draft order under Section 143(3), read with Section 144-C of the IT Act on 30/12/2011. The Appellant filed objections to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 10/9/2015, the ITAT dismissed this appeal. Hence, the present appeal under Section 260-A of the IT Act on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 11. Mr. Ramani, the learned Senior Advocate for the Assessee submits that the AO's order dated 19/10/2012 had merged into the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17/5/2013 in ITA No.89/PNJ/2012. He, therefore, submits that it was not open to the CIT to thereafter initiate revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the IT Act. He submits that, in any case, the issues for the Assessment Year 2008-09 are identical to the issues which arise in the Assessment Year 2009-10. He submits that for the Assessment Year 2009-10,the Revenue has practic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aside. 15. Ms. Linhares, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that only one ground was pressed before the ITAT and, therefore, it is not open to the Assessee to urge any further grounds in this Appeal. She points out that the record of the ITAT bears some sacrosancy and the same cannot be questioned in this appeal, particularly since the Assessee never bothered to take out any rectification application before the ITAT. 16. Ms. Linhares submits that the principles of res judicata as such are not applicable to the income tax proceedings as each year is a separate unit for assessment and, therefore, there is no breach of any principle of consistency as urged on behalf of the Assessee. 17. Ms. Linhares relies upon th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law that the record before a Court or a Tribunal cannot be challenged in this manner. If the Assessee was indeed serious about this contention, then, a minimum that was expected of the Assessee was to have pointed this out to the ITAT soon after the impugned order was made. It is not uncommon that several grounds are raised in the Appeal Memo, but at the time of arguments, only one or two grounds are actually pressed. 23. The CIT, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, has satisfied the twin requirements as prescribed in Section 263 of the ITAT Act. There was material before the ITAT to at least prima facie infer that there was under-invoicing and that this aspect of under-invoicing was not considered by the AO in making his asse....