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

ITA 3248/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8944 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Double taxation relief
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3248/M/2016 (AY 2011 - 2012) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, C/O. SRBC & ASSOCIATES, LLP, 14 TH FLOOR, THE RUBY, 29 SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR WEST, MUMBAI 400028. / VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 4, R.NO. 1704, 17 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021. ./ PAN : AAICS7634P ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : (WITHDRAWN LETTER) SHRI RAJAN VORA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMAN KUMAR, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.01.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .01.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: 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 APPRE CIATING 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 2 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 2 1.10.2016 AND KEPT FOR CLARIFICATION TO BE HEARD ON 06.01.2017 . THE SAME WAS NECESSITATED IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 4.1.2016. DURING CLARIFICATION S, 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 PA SSED 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 UNDE R: - 5......THE ASSESSEE IS A TAX RESIDENT OF MAURITIUS AND IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM BENEFITS UNDER THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN INDIA AND MAURITIUS. 3. EVENTUALLY, AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITIONS ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE CIT IN THE REVISION ORDER DATED 8.3.2016 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE SAID SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PROPOSED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID REVISION ORDER. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PART IES AND CONSIDERING THE NO OBJECTION BY THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN. ACCORDINGLY WE ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 T H JANUARY, 2017. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 11.01.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 3 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI