TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in law in holding that it had no power to decide the issue of validity/maintainability of the issue of notice u/s 148. 3. That the notice issued u/s 148 is bed in law as the order passed u/s 148A(d) has failed to consider at all the legal objections raised vide para 53A of reply dt. 07.06.2022 submitted in compliance to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) dt. 27.05.2022 and also on account of twisted presentation of facts. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law as the same is a non-speaking order passed summarily rejecting and not considering, deliberating and dealing with all the contentions/rebuttals made, evidences placed on record and the case laws cited in its true spirit as directed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore liable to be quashed as such. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned AO has erred in law in applying the provisions of section 68 with respect to addition of Rs. 1,63,33,500.00 made. 6. That, without prejudice to the ground of appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) The Assessing Officer is directed to complete the assessment as per the above directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. (ii) The Assessing Officer shall place a copy of these directions as annexure to the final order, to be read as a part of the order. (iii) While passing the final order, the Assessing Officer shall incorporate the reasons given by the Dispute Resolution Panel in respect of various objections, at appropriate places." 3.1 In pursuance of the DRP directions, the AO's final order, on the issue of taxability of Rs. 1,63,33,500/-, reads as under: "10. The directions given by the Ld. DRP-2, New Delhi have been perused, wherein, the Ld. DRP has directed the undersigned to take rejoinder to remand report into account while passing the final order. The directions of the Ld. DRP have been considered, however, the claim of the assessee in rejoinder to the remand report is merely a repetition and elaboration of what he had submitted as additional evidences during DRP proceedings. Succinctly, during the course of DRP proceedings, the assessee has submitted the following additional evidence: 1. Copy of Tax Audit Repot of M/s S R Credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is own bank statement for the stated period. The assessee however failed to furnish copy of company's HDFC bank account statement. On perusal of the ledger and the bank statements, it is seen that the entries mentioned in the ledger are neither reflected in company's bank account (except for entry of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 18 04.2015. It is further submitted that none of the other entries, both debit and credit, in the name of the assessee in the company's ledger are verifiable from the above documents. 11. From the above, it is clearly evident that the assessee has not brought on record anything new in rejoinder. Therefore, in view of the records available with this office, the claim of the assessee is not found tenable. 12. After considering entire gamut of facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the directions Ld. DRP, total income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 1,77,92,830/-. Issue necessary forms. Give credit for pre-paid taxes after verification. Charge interest u/s 234A, 2348, 234C and 234D of the Act, as applicable. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income." 4. The Ld. Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 144C(8) of the Act and thus, the same should be treated as null and void as it had delegated its power to the AO. 4.1 On legal issue, the Ld. AR argued the case at length by submitting the factual details. It was submitted that the case of M/s S R Credits Private Ltd. was assessed in the Central Circle, New Delhi. The details mentioned in the AO's order under section 148A(d) of the Act demonstrated the credit worthiness of M/s S R Credits Private Ltd. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the directions of the Ld. DRP were in accordance with the provisions of section 144C(5) of the Act, which reads as under: "The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment." The Ld. CIT-DR, placing emphasis on the provisions of section 144C(5) of the Act, contended that the Ld. DRP can issue any direction as it thinks fit for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment. She argued that the Ld. DRP had not delegated its power to the AO. It had simply directed the AO to ....