DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was impermissible as it amounted to a review of the earlier assessment order and a change of opinion without any new material coming to the Assessing Officer's knowledge. The Tribunal noted that the issue of GDR receipts had been examined in detail in earlier assessment years (2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) and all relevant information was on record. The information now being used to expand the scope of inquiry was already available prior to the conclusion of the earlier reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the extension of inquiry beyond the reasons recorded, based on existing information already considered, was contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and reiterated in Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO. Consequently, the addition on account of GDR receipts amounting to Rs. 44,75,88,075/- was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of purchases, as the primary issue of reassessment jurisdiction was decided against the Revenue, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this addition, implicitly setting aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s partial sustenance. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, heard cross-appeals by Winsome Textiles Industries Limited (Assessee) and the Revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee's appeal (ITA No. 528/Chd/2024) challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and the sustenance of an addition of Rs. 61,54,754/- on account of alleged unexplained purchases. The Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 556/Chd/2024) challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 44,75,88,075/- made on account of Global Depository Receipts (GDRs). The Assessee's original return was processed under Section 143(1). The case was reopened under Section 147 based on exchange rate gains on GDR proceeds, with a notice under Section 148 issued on March 26, 2017. A subsequent reopening under Section 147 was initiated on March 31, 2018, based on information from DDIT (Investigation) regarding alleged paper concerns used for bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 82,06,338/- for purchases and Rs. 44,75,88,075/- for GDR receipts.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was legally valid, considering the Assessee's contention that there was no escapement of income and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion or borrowed information. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 61,54,754/- (15% of purchases) out of Rs. 82,06,338/- made on account of alleged unexplained purchases from M/s Rohit Trading Company and M/s Vijay Trading Company, treating them as non-genuine. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,75,88,075/- made on account of Global Depository Receipts (GDRs), on the grounds that the Assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors, and could not explain the sources of investment. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee argued that the reopening under Section 147 was illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified as there was no reason to believe income had escaped assessment, and it was based on a change of opinion or borrowed information. The Assessee also contended that the addition on account of purchases was arbitrary and unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,75,88,075/- related to GDRs, as the Assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors and could not explain the sources of investment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115JB,Section 143(1),Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT248 citing308 ITR 38 · 2009 · HC
- M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills v. CIT44 citing269 ITR 192 · 2004 · HC
- Dulichand Singhania v. ACIT4 citing278 ITR 470 · HC
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : These are Cross Appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 11/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In ITA No. 528/Chd/2024, the Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 148 in as much as there was no escapement of income leading to a reason to belief and as such the re-opening is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
That there was no reason to believe that the income already assessed under section 143(3) of the Act had escaped assessment and as such the assessment framed and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) based on a mere change of opinion is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such the assessment order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.61,54,754/- out of total addition of Rs.82,06,338/- made on account of alleged unexplained purchases from M/s Rohit Trading Company and M/s Vijay Trading Company treating them to be non-genuine which is arbitrary and unjustified.
That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus untenable.
In ITA No. 556/Chd/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.44,75,88,075/- made on account of failure of the assessee to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of the investors in GDRS (Global Depository Receipts).
The Ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.44,75,88,075/- when the circumstances established that the assessee could not explain the sources of investment of Rs.44,75,88,075/- in its books of accounts as Share Application Money/Share Premium/Global Depository Receipts.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of yarns during the F.Y 2010-11 relevant to impugned A.Y 2011-12. The assessee company filed its return of income on 28/09/2011 declaring profit of Rs.21,05,09,768/- which was set off against the brought forward losses and thereby NIL income was reported under the normal provisions. However, the tax liability was discharged by paying taxes under section 115JB of the Act. The return of income was processed under section 143(1), thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 after recording reasons relating to taxability of exchange rate gains earned by the assessee on GDR proceeds which were not repatriated to India immediately and thus income has escaped assessment and notice under section 148 was issued on 26/03/2017. Thereafter after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the AO framed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 vide order dt. 12/10/2017 accepting the return of income, without providing any adverse inference or finding.
Thereafter, information was received by the AO from DDIT(Investigation) Unit-71, Delhi vide letter dt. 26/03/2018 that the assessee has undertaken transaction with the some proprietary concerns which on investigation were found to be paper concern and are used to provide bogus bills of purchases to the beneficiaries company. Basis the same, reasons were recorded by the AO that income to the extent of Rs.2,29,15,034/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and another notice under section 148 was issued on 31/03/2018 which was served on the assessee on the said date.
In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 19/04/2018 declaring total income as declared as per original return of income filed on 28/09/2011. Thereafter, the assessee sought copy of the reasons so recorded vide its letter dt. 15/12/2018 and which were provided to the assessee on 17/12/2018 and thereafter, the assessee filed its objection to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 vide letter dt. 19/12/2018 which were disposed off by the AO by passing a separate order dt. 19/12/2018. Thereafter, after issuance of notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) and after calling for necessary information and documentation as well as issue of specific show cause notice, the AO made an addition of Rs.82,06,338/- being 20% of the total purchase of Rs.4,10,31,689/- made from M/s Rohit Trading Company (Rs.3,44,37,684/-) and M/s Vijay Trading Company (Rs.65,94,005/-). In addition, the AO also treated the GDR receipt of Rs.6,45,00,000/-being share capital and Rs.38,30,88,075/- being security premium totaling to Rs. 44,75,88,075/- as income from undisclosed sources and which was brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not allow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses/ unabsorbed depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs. 21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs.44,75,88,075/- under the normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs.12,83,97,342/-.
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the order so passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 dt. 28/12/2018 was challenged both in terms of assumption of juri iction under section 147 of the Act as well as on the merits of the addition so made by the AO. As far as the assessee's challenge to the assumption of juri iction under section 147 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the various contentions so raised by the assessee and the grounds of appeal so raised by the assessee were dismissed. Against the said findings, the assessee has again challenged the assumption of juri iction by the AO before us.
As far as the addition of Rs.82,06,338/- made by the AO @ 20% of the total purchase, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee wherein as against 20% applied by the AO, 15% of the purchase price was found reasonable to cover the extra profit and as a result, the addition of Rs.61,54,745/- was confirmed and the balance addition of Rs.20,51,585/- was directed to be deleted. Against the addition so sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
As far as the addition on account of GDR receipt under section 68 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has given his reasoning and findings in para 8.1 to 8.29 in the impugned order and held that the addition under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium through issuance of GDR is not sustainable by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and the AO was directed to delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee and the grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee be allowed. Against the said action of the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of deleting the addition under section 68 on account of GDR receipt, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
As we have noted above, the assessee has challenged the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of assumption of juri iction under section 147 of the Act. Both the parties fairly submitted and it was also deemed appropriate that the said grounds of appeal be taken up first for adjudication, thereafter, the merit of the addition so sustained and deleted by the Ld CIT(A) may be considered.
In this regard, during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant had filed its original return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring profit of Rs 21,05,90,768/- which was set off against the brought forward losses. However, tax was paid under sections 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2017 was issued after approval from the Worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and thereafter, the assessment was completed on 12.10.2017. The Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14 had referred the matter regarding receipt of GDRs to the Foreign Tax Department (FTD), the information of which was received from them before the completion of assessment and even before the issue of original notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.03.2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12. This fact emerges from the rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19.12.2018 filed by the assessee and is incorporated in the assessment order. The averments in respect of the information being available from Singapore and UK authorities with the department have not been denied. Thus, details in entirety in respect of GDR issue was available with the Assessing Officer at the time when the assessment proceedings in respect of original notice issued under section 148 on 26.03.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2018 has been issued on the basis of information received from investigation wing of department, New Delhi regarding certain non-genuine purchases by the appellant vide letter dated 26.03.2018 as mentioned in the reasons recorded. The appellant filed all documents regarding purchase bills, transport receipts, material inward register, payment of entry tax to Government. The assessee even requested for cross examination of the party concerned on whose statement the Income Tax Department was relying regarding non-supply of goods by them. The Assessing Officer has accepted the books of accounts and has made an adhoc addition of 20 percent of the purchase to cover any kind of extra profit. The action of the Assessing Officer in the absence of reliance on any credible evidence is unjustified and legally not tenable. The Assessing Officer has infact accepted the purchases but has taken 20 percent of the purchase price as extra profit in the absence of any evidence for reasons best known to him. The Assessing Officer has further extended the scope of enquiry regarding issue of GDR receipts credited in the assessee's books of accounts when all the material relied upon by him was available in the assessment records at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.17 and the returned income was accepted by the then Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded in the present proceedings pertained only to alleged bogus purchases and not in respect of GDR issue. Rather, the Assessing Officer mentions in the reasons in Para 1 that earlier the case was reopened under section 148 on the issue of GDR receipts. The assessee had filed objections clearly stating that the basis of the information received from U.K Authorities in the month of April 2018 appears contrary to the material on record. The information received from U.K Authorities in April 2018 was the same as intimated by them to Foreign Tax Department to the Assessing Officer in June/July, 2016 on the basis of the documents shown to the authorized representative of the assessee. The extension of the scope of the proceedings under section 147 is against the provisions of law in view of the various judicial pronouncements specially when the information was on record at the time of issuance of original notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has only tried to justify extending the scope of his enquiry and has remained silent on the receipt of information from U.K Authorities in June/July, 2016 and from Singapore Authority on 03.06.2016. The addition on account of GDR proceeds under section 68 Income Tax Act, 1961 are without any basis and on the reliance of SEBI investigation of the lead manager to the issue, the SEBI report was also available on record as shown to the Authorised Representative of the assessee before the issue of the first notice of reassessment on 26.03.2017. As such, the assessment framed in respect of both the issues i.e. alleged bogus purchases and GDR issue is nothing but a change of opinion. All the details in respect of sales/purchases were on record during the course of earlier proceedings initiated vide issuance of notice under section 148 on 26.03.2017 and subsequent assessment framed. The assessee had filed its objections before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.12.2018 and contents thereof read as under: “Objection to the initiation of proceedings U/s.147 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2011-12 pursuant to the copy of the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings supplied on 15th December, 2018 and both Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018- 19/1014084611(1)and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1) issued on 7th December, 2018 further expanding the scope of the proceedings to the issue relating to the GDR receipts for which no reasons have been recorded and which have been subject matter of extensive inquiry U/S 147 and 143(3) for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assumption of juri iction and the extension of scope of inquiry beyond the reasons recorded deserves to be set aside on the following grounds:- i) The assessee company filed its return of income on 29th September, 2011 at nil income after set- ting of brought forward losses to the tune of Rs.210509768/-. The said return was accepted and a notice was issued U/s.147 on 26th March, 2017. The reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings U/s.147 indicated that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, the amount raised after the issue of GDRs during the FY 2010-11, was not immediately repatriated to India. It was invested in Aries Capital Fund Ltd. and subsequently repatriated to India over a period of four years which during F.Y. 2010-11 resulted in a foreign exchange gain of Rs.11,99,000/- which was not treated as a revenue receipt and thus in terms of the reasons recorded escaped in-come for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee submitted its reply and after due application of mind, the re- turned income was accepted in terms of order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 on 12.10.2017. The present notice U/s.147 has been issued on 31st March, 2018 on the ground that certain purchases made from M/s Rohit Trading Company were bogus purchases and thus income had escaped assessment for which reasons were recorded for initiating the present proceedings. That since the present proceedings have been initiated after a period of four years, and all material facts relating to the purchases made had been duly disclosed in the profit and loss account and balance sheet there being no failure to disclose truly all material facts, the pre- sent reassessment proceedings are bad in law in terms of the ratio of the following judgments: c) Navkar share and stock brokers Vs. ACIT 390 ITR 362 & proceedings, a notice was issued U/s 142(1) was issued on 4th July, 2018 asking the undersigned to provided information and copies of accounts of i) Rohit Trading Company 2) Mahalakshmi and others. The assessee furnished all information on 11th September, 2018 alongwith requisite proof. The same was followed by show cause notice on 1st October, 2018 also relating to the purchases made by the company which was the only ground for initiating the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12 as is evident from the reasons recorded. The Assessee furnished reply on 17th October, 2018 and was thereafter issued other notices on 7th December, 2018. The said notices related to the issue pertaining to GDR amounting to Rs.6,45,00,000/- shown as credit in share capital account and Rs. 38,30,88,075/- in securities premium account pertaining to five parties for which details were sought by the Assessing Officer. The assessee furnished information on 14th December, 2018. However, it is relevant to point out that the issue relating to GDR receipts is not part of the reasons recorded for reassessment proceeding against which notice u/s 148 issued on 31st March, 2018 since the issue of GDR receipts was already subject matter of reassessment proceedings initiated for the present year vide reasons recorded and notice issued on 14th July, 2017 culminating in an assessment order on 12th October, 2017. The same is clear from para lof reasons recorded which reads as “The case was reopened u/s 148 on the issue of GDR receipts. The assessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017”. The assessment year 2012-13, the issue regarding GDR receipts was subject matter of proceeding U/s.147 on 26th March, 2017 and final orders were also passed on 12th October, 2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. It is also relevant to point out that the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for Α.Υ. 2013-14 and 2014-15 in which detailed queries were raised to the assessee on the GDR issue and the company has appropriately replied with relevant information and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras:
been subject matter of extensive inquiry u/s 147 and 143(3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to 2014-15. reads as under:
the case may be, for the A.Y. concerned".
course of pending proceedings.
about receipts of GDRs during A.Y. 2011-12 was initiated through Foreign Tax received prima facie disapproves the genuineness of the claim of money through order sheet entry dated 19.12.2018. accordance with law.
dated 12.10.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 was passed. The assessee also claimed that issue of GDR was examined during A.Y. 2012-13 to in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to information received till that date from Singapore Authority.
proceedings completed by 12.10.2017 is incorrect and denied.
In view of the above all the objections raised by the assessee are disposed off.
It was submitted that rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections read as under : “Rebuttal to the order disposing off the objections dated 19th December, 2018: As per your order disposing assessee's objections vide letter no that on 12/10/2017 only details from Singapore authority was received.
incorrect to say that all information was available on records when order dt. 12.10.2017 for AY 2011-12 was passed". the issue regarding GDR was subject matter of proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 and documents on the GDR issue and final assessment orders were passed on 29th being sought again.
used to review the orders passed by the earlier Assessing Authorities. The issue of mind by the previous Assessing Officer.
Since no new material has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer during opinion which is impermissible in law. This is clearly contrary to the ratio of the Apex Court in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. reiterated in Techspan India P Itd. v ITO enclosed as Annexure D (page nos.1 to 5).
have been brushed aside by stating that the amount claimed from the issue of GDR was credited in the Assessee's books for the order for the initiation of first reassessment proceedings by the present Assessment Year 2011- 12 on the GDR issue the relevant material being part of the record thus the of reassessment proceedings in October, 2017. Further as per your notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2018-19/1014102487(1)dtd. 07/12/2018 it is informed that M/s Scholari Investment Itd., Albarma Ltd. of the same provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings for AY 2013-
Since the matter was examined thread bare by the Assessing Officer during the same was furnished, the present inquiry vide notices dated 7th December proceedings thus constitute a review of the order passed by the preceding passed on 12th October, 2017. 15. It was submitted that the objection were disposed off by the AO vide order dt. 19/12/2018 and the contents thereof read as under:
losses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not repatriated to India resulting exchange rate gain which escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings were completed on 12.10.2017. operated by some entry operators used to provide bogus bills of purchase beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK the beneficiaries after charging certain commission from the beneficiaries.
not asked for providing the copy of reasons recorded for initiating proceedings U/s 147. assessee. However, on 17.12.2018, the assessee through its AR filed a letter dated provided to him on 17.12.2018 itself. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated the reopening of the assessment are disposed off in the following paras: The first objection is about the extension of the scope
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
