STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ( MAURITIUS) LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (IT) 4, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3248/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 January 2017AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's subsequent order did not make any additions, and the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a revision order passed by the CIT under Section 263. During the pendency of the appeal, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263, granting the benefits of the India-Mauritius DTAA to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263 and whether the original AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “L” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOODShri Suman Kumar, DR

For Appellant: Shri Rajan
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Hearing: 06.01.2017Pronounced: 11.01.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 9.5.2016 is against the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the CIT (IT)-4, Mumbai. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. The Ld CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act to revise the order of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(1) issued u/s 143(3) of the Act on the matter of taxation of interest income earned by the appellant, which was claimed as exempt under Article 11(3)(c) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius (Treaty).

2. The Ld CIT erred in not appreciating the facts in the case of the appellant and in issuing a notice u/s 263 of the Act based on such incorrect premise.

3. The Ld CIT erred in failing to appreciate that the impugned order passed by the learned AO was after application of mind, and was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that both the conditions (simultaneously applicable) were not satisfied in the case of the appellant.

4. The Ld CIT failed to appreciate that the appellant has fulfilled the conditions to be eligible to claim benefit under Article 11(3)(c) of the Treaty in respect of the interest income earned from investments in debt securities in India.

5. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT erred in not giving a finding on the matter and instead directing the AO to pass a fresh order after examination of the material and position of law thereby failing to consider the merits of the objections raised by the appellant in response to the show-cause notice.”

2. This appeal was originally heard by us on 21.10.2016 and kept for clarification to be heard on 06.01.2017. The same was necessitated in view of the assessee’s letter dated 4.1.2016. During clarifications, ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the notice to the said letter dated 4.1.2016 relating to the “request for withdrawal of appeal for the AY 2011-2012”. Deviating from the earlier arguments made in the past, when the case was originally heard on 21.10.2016, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the Assessing Officer passed an order on 13.12.2016 u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and granted benefits of the Article 11 of DTAA with Mauritius to the assessee. Relevant paras 5 from the said order of the AO was read out by the Ld Counsel and the same reads as under:-

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →