TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012". ii. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the relevant facts of the case in respect of addition made on account of undisclosed foreign assets / investments". 3. Smt. Esther Ninghauvung Hanghal representing the Department submitted that during the course of search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] in the case of Dilip J. Thakkar on 10/08/2011, it was found that the assessee has invested GBP 15,00,000/- in State Bank of India, Resurgent India Bonds(RIB) in October 1998 i.e. relevant to Assessment Year 1999-2000. Consequent to search, the assessment for Assessment Year 1999-2000 in the case of assessee was reopened. One of the reason for reopening assessment was that the source of investment in RIB was not disclosed. During assessment the Assessing Officer found that investment in RIB was routed through Natwest London to camouflage source of funds. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11.50 crores (after conversion of GBP to INR @Rs.76.68) u/s. 69 of the Act. Against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23/11/2022; (2) DCIT vs. Indira D. Thakur in ITA No. 969/MUM/2020 for A.Y 1999-2000, decided on 14/02/2022; (3) DCIT vs. Shri Biswanath Goradia A.Y 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2005-06 in ITA No. 1672 to 1674/KOL/2018 &ITA No. 1861 & 1862/KOL/2018; and (4) Brahm Datt vs. Asstt. CIT, 100 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi). 4.1. On merits of the addition, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in coming to the conclusion that real beneficiary of Suchak Family Trust is Dilip J. Thakkar. The findings of the Assessing Officer are contrary to the facts and documents on record. He referred to communication dated 23/3/2015 (at page 1 of paper book Vol.-I) from Swiss Federal Tax Administration clarifying that neither Dilip J Thakkar nor his wife Indira Dilip Thakar are beneficiaries of Chaganlal Suchak Family Trust. The Department without any cogent evidence is trying to link Dilip J. Thakkur with the Trust of Suchak family. He further asserted that merely for the reason that the assessee in application for RIB in column of local address has mentioned the address of Dilip J Thakkar would not in any manner lead to a conclusion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 1998-99. The Hon'ble High Court also considered amendments to the section from time to time viz. amendment by the Finance Act, 1987, Finance Act, 2001 and the provisions inserted to section 149 by the Finance Act, 2012. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after examining the provisions of section 149 and subsequent amendments held that assessment for 1998-99 could not be reopened beyond 31/03/2005 in terms of provisions of section 149 of the Act as applicable to the relevant time. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court held that the assessment could not have been reopened beyond a period of six years. On retrospective applicability of the amendment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed:- "16. It has been said that "the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances, and to plan one's affairs on the basis of this knowledge" (Ref. FA Hayek, "Road to Serfdom", 1944). In this case, the interpretation proposed by the revenue has the potential of arming its authorities to re-open settled matters, in respect of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd [1961] 42 ITR 589, it was held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law upsetting the position and imposing tax liability after that date, even if made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year. These principles were reiterated in CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 249/227 Taxman 121/367 ITR 466 (SC)." Thus, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the contention of Department on retrospective applicability of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2012. It is pertinent to mention that the SLP filed by the Revenue ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment which was already barred under the old Act. This view is borne out by the decision of this court in S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231, 240 (SC). In that case, a notice was issued against the assessee as an agent of a non-resident on 27th March, 1957, and that notice related to the assessment year 1954-55. Under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(1), as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1956, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment. The right to commence a proceeding for assessment against the assessee as agent of a nonresident for the assessment year 1954-55, therefore, ended on 31st March, 1956, under the new Act before its amendment in 1956. This provision was, however, amended by the Finance Act, 1956, and under the amended provision the period of limitation was extended to two years from the end of the assessment year. The amendment was made on 8th September, 1958, but was given effect to from 1st April, 1956. Since the time within which notice could be issued against a person deemed to be an ag....