SESA GOA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT passed u/s. 263. The ld. AR, at the outset, stated that both these appeals can be disposed off on the basis of the facts for the A.Y. 2006 -07 as in both the years the CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 practically on the same basis and therefore he preferred to argue the appeal on the basis of the facts for the A.Y. 2006 -07 and submitted that whatever view this Tribunal may take in A.Y. 2006 -07, the same may be followed in the A.Y. 2007 -08 also. We, therefore, decided to dispose off both the appeals on the basis of the facts relating to A.Y. 2006 -07. Although in the original appeal for the A.Y. 2006 -07 filed by the Assessee, the Assessee has taken 4 grounds of appeal those grounds were amended by the Assessee by filing amended grounds of appeal vide letter dt. 13.8.2012 which reads as under :

(2.) THE Learned CIT, based on a preliminary report of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) of the Govt. of India; erred in holding that the order passed by the A.O., was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by reason of the alleged under -invoicing of iron ore export by the Appellant to the extent of Rs. 240 crore; ignoring the fact that the said order was passed by the A.O. after duly scrutinising the relevant transactions and also by having regards to the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act, thereto.

(3.) THE Learned CIT erred in holding that the order passed by the A.O. was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act by reasons of the alleged under -invoicing of exports and/or over -invoicing of imports, since the said allegations are based only on preliminary findings of the SFIO, which were not part of the records relating to any proceedings under the Act.