TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case and in law, the order passed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144C of the Act is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') is non est and invalid in absence of Document Identification Number ('DIN'). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed in conformity with invalid directions of DRP is, therefore, invalid and barred by limitation. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act. 3. M/s AEP Investments(Mauritius) Limited. (AIML) is a company incorporated in Mauritius on 15.07.2008. The Company is set-up under the laws of Mauritius as an investment holding company for making investments and holding them on a longterm basis. The Assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius as per Article 4 of the India-Mauritius Doubt Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Mauritius DTAA'). It holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC') ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessee during the FY 2016-17. 5. During the year under consideration assessee has made foreign remittance to the tune of Rs. 28,82,35,290/- to Mauritius. Based on the information pertaining to foreign remittances notice, u/s. 148 has been issued by the Revenue Authorities. 6. At ground no. 6 of the appeal the assessee has questioned the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. 7. We have examined the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issue of notice u/s. 148 of Act. The same are as under:- (Annexure A) Reasons of reopening in case of AEP Investment (Mauritius) Ltd. for AY 2017-18, PAN -AAMCA7431Q The assessee, AEP Investment (Mauritius) Ltd PAN - AAMCA7431Q, has not filed return of its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a return of its income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed :"" 5. In the above background and after examining the available information, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 28,82,35,290/-as mentioned above during the FY 2016-17 (relevant to AY 2017-18) has escaped assessment within the meaning given in Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, I am of the belief that it is a fit case for the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. I propose to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2017-18 and to assess or reassess the above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s u/s 147 of the Act for AY 2017-18. 8. The relevant portion of the reasons recorded are, * It is pertinent to mention that though the assessee has made large transactions, the assessee has chosen not to file return of its income for the relevant year. * Therefore, it appears that the assessee is carrying on some activity which has resulted in generation of income, but the income has escaped assessment as no ITR has been filed by the assessee. 9. On examination of the record before us, we find that the assessee has remitted an amount Rs. 28.82 crores and also filed form 15CA from which the Revenue came to know the information pertaining to the remittances. 10. From the above reasons nothing could be deciphered has....