TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he directions of Hon'ble DRP are not barred by limitation? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding action under section 153C by holding that handing over of assets is not required for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C though there is no recording of satisfaction within the meaning of section 153C? D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the invocation of section 153C of IT Act though the notice under section 153C has been issued without proper application of mind? I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of TPO of reviewing her own order passed under section 92CA(3) and the correctness of the remand by the DRP to TPO? E. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP in respect of AMP expenditure though it d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain additions. Assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and assessee filed cross-objections. The Tribunal allowed the cross-objections of the assessee in part dismissing the revenue's appeal s for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Relating to the assessment year 2005-06, the appeal filed by the assessee was pending before the CIT (A). Relating to the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.Nil. No assessment has been made prior to requisition proceedings. Relating to the assessment year 2008-09, return was filed by the assessee declaring the income of Rs. Nil. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued. 9. It transpires that Bangalore City Police has seized the cash of Rs. 9.85 crore on 04.08.2008 from the residence of the searched person, Mr. Hisham Syed Tamiz. A warrant of authorisation under Section 132A was executed by the Director of Income Tax to requisite the seized cash from Inspector of Police, J.C. Nagar Police Station. The said Inspector was directed to handov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h made an endeavor to justify the impugned orders but could not succeed as the reply given by the competent authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the order of transfer could not be disputed. However, the learned counsel made an attempt to support the impugned orders referring to Sections 292B and 292BB of the Act. 13. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. As discussed above, an order under Section 127(2) of the Act was issued on 20.07.2009 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) and subsection (3) of Section 127 transferring the case of the assessee from the Assessing Officer - DCIT, Circle 6(1) to DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore. The said order specifies that the said Notification will come into effect from 20.07.2009. Notices under Section 153C were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore on 11.05.2009, much earlier to conferring jurisdiction on the said officer. In the assessment order of the search party - Mr. Hisham Syed Tamiz, it was refle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. As a consequence, the notice being without jurisdiction, all the proceedings subsequent thereto are without authority of law. The relevant factual aspects are discussed in para 13 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- "13. It is undisputed position that the respondent/assessee was being assessed at Rajnandgaon (M.P.). It was as a consequence of search upon the Motwani group at Nagpur that a search was carried on upon the Respondent/Assessee. In view of the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur for facilitating detailed and coordinated investigation, passed an order on 6.7.1999, under Section 127 of the Act transferring the respondent/assessee's case from Rajnangaon to Nagpur. However, the Order dated 6.7.1999 of the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., supra, the notice issued without jurisdiction is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Sections 292B and 292BB which deals with mistake/defect or service of notice. 21. Section 124(3)(c) was inserted by the Finance Act 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016 which reads thus: "124(3)(c) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer.- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier." 22. It is trite that the language employed in the Amendment Act is self - explanatory that the said amendment has come into effect prospectively from the 1st Day of June, 2016. The intention of the legislature was made explicit to give effect to the amendment from 1st Day of June, 2016. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature, the same being conscious decision of th....