TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 available on record. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs.1,99,11,429/-. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 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 and Cyquator by EMEL was required to be verified by the Department and as the Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (herewith referred as 'PCIT-6') was the same i.e. PCIT-6, two foreign references were prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 this information was forwarded by the ld. PCIT to the ld. AO or not as what is relevant for computing the limitation period is when the competent authority i.e. ld. PCIT receives the information as per the Act. Even if there is some delay in forwarding of information by the ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Cyquator, extension will be available for a period of 1 year. In case if the assessment in the case of Cyquator was framed on 30.03.2016, then it would be well within extended time. 13. 30.09.2015 Notice was issued by MRA to EMEL to provide further information as required by Indian Tax Authorities presumably for Cyquator's case as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought 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 made to FT & TR qua the assessee with regard to the issue of share subscription made by EMEL with the assessee company. The ld. DR filed various details from time to time in the form of paper books and letters duly signed by the present AO having jurisdiction over the assessee herein. Infact, on few occasions, the ld. AO also was physically present at the time of hearing. On 15.11.22, the ld. AO was....