South Staffordshire PLC., UK V. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 1848/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1399 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Section: 144C

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1848/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE PLC, GREEN LANE, WALSALL WEST MIDLANDS WS27PD, UK PAN: AASCS3243A VS. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 3(1)(2), ROOM NO. 419, E - 2, BLOCK, 4 TH FLOOR, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI SATPAL GULATI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 12/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 / 0 5 /2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1 . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE LD AO DATED 31.01.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THAT, ON THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE' IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IN BAD IN LAW, BEING A NON - SPEAKING ORDER PASSED IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE TACTUAL DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE OBJECTION AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT, THE IMPUGNED DIRECTION OF DRP TO EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE SHOULD VERIFY THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WAS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C (6) (A) WHEREIN POWER OF DRP IS NOT EXTENDED TO ANY PROPOSED VARIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB - SECTION (5) FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION, ENQUIRY AND PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. TH AT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANE L ('DRP') ARE ULTRA - VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DRP ARE ULTRA - VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C (5) READ WITH SECTION 144C (8) OF THE 5. THAT , ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN PAGE | 2 PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DRP WHICH ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HENCE IS VOID ORDER.' 6. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME (LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN) OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS 42,673,897/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS NIL - LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 24,351,363/ - DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE COMPANY, WHICH IS REGISTERED IN UNITED KINGDOM. THIS APPEAL IS SIGNED BY AN AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. ALAN WELLS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 4 . ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25 3 (6) OF THE ACT , APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHALL BE FILED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER. ACCORDING TO RULE 47 ( 1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962, THE APPEAL SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SUB RULE 3 OF RULE 45 . A CCORDING TO THAT SUB RULE, THE FORM OF APPEAL SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE PERSON WHO IS AUTHORISED TO VERIFY THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 140 OF THE ACT A S APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 140 (C) OF THE ACT , THE FIRST PROVISO SA YS THAT WHE RE COMPANY IS NOT A RESIDENT IN INDIA , THE RETURN MAY BE VERIFIED BY A PERSON WHO HOLDS A VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM SUCH COMPANY TO DO SO. ACCORDING TO PAGE NUMBER 2 25 OF THE APPEAL SET FILED BEFORE US , MR. ALAN WELLS IS ONLY AUTHORISED TO SIGN AND VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE , IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER MR. ALAN WELLS WAS HOLDING A VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM SUCH COMPANY TO VERIFY THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PROVIDED US 140(C) OF THE ACT OR NOT. AS THIS INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD , WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL IN LIMINE. 5 . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO G RANTED LIBERTY TO FILE THE PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR SIGNING FORM NUMBER 36 IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEN REQUEST FOR RECALL OF THE A BOVE ORDER. 6 . I N THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE WITH ABOVE DIRECTION. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 / 0 5 / 2020 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 / 0 5 / 2020 PAGE | 3 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPLICANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI