TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restore. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary.' ITA No.3317/Mum/2017 '1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the assessment completed on 31.03.2016 is beyond the time limit prescribed in section 153(1)(a) of the Act, without considering the fact a reference u/s 90 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer hence the time limit to pass the assessment order was extended by a year t0o 31.03.2016. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer through A.O. had specifically asked for the same vide letter dated 25.01.2017 to Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, may be necessary.' 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices Pvt Ltd along with the assessee herein for the sake of cohesive understanding of the disputed issue on limitation. Along with the relevant event, the submissions of the ld.AR and ld. DR are also considered by us by making specific reference to the paper book submitted by the assessee as under:- Sr. No. Date Event Page No. of Paper Book 1. 29.09.2012 The assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs 1,99,11,429/- 2. 06.08.2013 The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued 3. 13.04.2014 12.08.2014 22.08.2014 04.03.2015 14.03.2015 Submissions were filed before the ld. AO from time to time in regular course of assessment proceedings 4. 20.03.2015 Essel Media & Entertainment Limited (herewith referred as 'EMEL'), a Mauritius based company had during the financial year ended 31.03.2012 relevant to the Assessment Year i.e. AY 2012-13 subscribed to shares of the assessee and Cyquator Media Services Private Ltd (herewith referred as 'Cyquator'), a group company of the assessee. As the genuineness of the said investments into the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the case of Cyquator and the assessee. The subject in the said letter referred only to Cyquator and not to the assessee, however, it is clear from the aforesaid narration that common responses from EMEL for both the assessee and Cyquator were forwarded by MRA to FT&TR which in turn forwarded the same to PCIT-6.The information has been received in a common letter. We find that as per clause (viii) (now clause (x)) of Explanation 1 to section 153 of the Act, the extended time limit granted to the ld. AO for passing the assessment order is upto the date of receipt of the information by competent authority i.e. PCIT. Merely because the subject of such letter referred to the name of only Cyquator, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept to the argument of the ld. DR before us that no information was received by the ld. PCIT qua the assessee, so as to seek extended limitation period of 1 year. In our considered opinion, the relevant fact is receipt of information and not whether the name mentioned in the covering letter with which the information has been received. Hence the argument advanced by the ld. DR in this regard is dismissed. Further, it is immaterial whether t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e competent authority i.e. PCIT-6 on 14.07.2015 as stated supra. The period between 20.03.2015 to 14.07.2015 shall be excluded. Accordingly, the said period should be excluded. • Period of 1 year Since the period of 11 days after excluding the period of reference is lesser than the period 1 year limitation, the assessment would, therefore, have to be completed within 11 days from 14.07.2015 subject to the first proviso. In terms of the first proviso to the Explanation 1 to section 153 of the Act, the ld. AO would have only 11 days to complete the assessment which is less than 60 days to complete the assessment and accordingly, by virtue of the proviso, the time limit to complete the assessment would be 60 days from 14.07.2015 i.e. 12.09.2015. As the assessment order has not been passed by the said date i.e. 12.09.2015, in our considered opinion, the assessment order passed subsequently on 30.03.2016 is time barred. On the other hand, it may be possible to contend for the revenue that the case of Cyquator was not barred by limitation as further information was sought by the ld. AO of the said case from MRA through the ld. PCIT / FT&TR. Therefore, in case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard to the share premium/share capital received from EMEL. Hence the limitation period expires earlier as far as the assessee is concerned as stated supra. 17. 31.03.2018 Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued seeking to tax transfer of shares of listed companies based on their market value although the same were transferred as gift without consideration as was sought to be done in the original assessment order. Even in the reassessment notice, no allegation has been made to tax the share subscription by EMEL. 18. 20.12.2018 The assessee, challenged the said notice under section 148 in writ before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITXA 3341 of 2018. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court was pleased to grant ad interim relief until final disposal of the petition, which continues to be pending as on the date of final hearing, as informed by the ld. AR. This is reckoned as a statement made from the Bar by the ld. AR. No contrary evidence was brought on record by the ld. DR to disprove this statement. (emphasis supplied by us) 8. As stated earlier, the Bench had been directing the revenue to produce the complete records of the reference ma....