TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99. 2. The appellant, a company incorporated in Cyprus, was registered as a foreign company in Mauritius. The appellant, on 26th April, 1993, leased a rig owned by it to Amar Ship Management Limited, a company incorporated in India which, in turn, hired the same to the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). 3. On 30th November, 1998, the appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 for the period 1st April, 1997 to 3rd October, 1997, declaring its total income at nil. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax made an assessment order dated 9th February, 2001, under section 143(3), assessing the income at Rs.15,29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd had thereby accepted that the rig owned and belonged to the Indian permanent establishment of the appellant. 6. The appellant's appeal before the CIT was dismissed by an order dated 20th December, 2006, passed by the CIT Appeals XXXI, Mumbai. The appellant's appeal from the said order was dismissed by the impugned order of the ITAT dated 7th June, 2010. The appellant has raised the following questions, contending that they are substantial questions of law: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 ignoring the fact that in the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect in upholding that the appellant had sold the rig on 19.9.2009 and thus obliterating the distinction between Bill of Sale and execution/completion of sale? 7. It would be convenient to consider questions (iv), (v) and (vi) first. A substantial question of law does not arise in the facts of this case. 8(A) As we mentioned earlier, the status of the appellant admittedly is that of a non-resident with permanent establishment and it filed its first return under the Act in India on that basis on 30th November, 1994. The appellant had from 16th April, 1996, leased its rig to M/s. Amar Ship Management Limited, a company incorporated in India in respect whereof the appellant received operating charges from time to time. M/s. Amar Ship Man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S, MORTGAGES, MARITIME LIENS OR ANY OTHER DEBTS/OR CLAIMS WHATSOEVER. In witness whereof we have executed this bill of sale on 19 SEPTEMBER 1997." The bill of sale transferred and vested in the purchaser, the right title and interest the rig. It records that the purchaser had paid the consideration and that in consideration thereof the appellant acknowledged the transfer of "all of the 100/100 shares in the Ship......to the transferee(s)". It further declares that the appellant, as the transferor, had the power "to transfer" in the manner aforesaid, the vessel. 9. The appellant however relied upon the following note at the foot of the bill of sale: "NOTE: A purchaser of a registered British Vessel does not obtain a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive rise to a substantial question of law. If we are correct in this regard, questions (iv) and (v), as framed, do not arise as admittedly, in that event, the appellant is liable to pay capital gains on the said transaction even under the Indo Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 15. The questions framed at paragraphs 4(i) and (ii) of the appeal also do not give rise to a substantial question of law. 16. As stated earlier, the sale was concluded on 19th September, 1997. The appellant filed the return for the period 1st April, 1997 to 30th October, 1997 on 30th November, 1998. The appellant admittedly did not disclose the transaction in the return. The transaction was discovered independently by the revenue which led to the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that the appellant had not disclosed the transaction and the income arising therefrom. In the order, the assessing officer has stated that he came to know of the same "as per the information available with this office", meaning thereby that he came to know of the same independently. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to consider the question raised to be a substantial question of law. 20. This brings us to the third question which is framed in paragraph 4(iii) of the appeal. Mr. Tiwari submitted that the order is illegal, null and void as it was beyond the period of three months from the date on which the hearing of the appeal before the ITAT concluded. 21. The facts of the case indicate that the dispu....