SHRI,M. GANESAN,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1 (1), TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2475/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 August 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unclear and lacking proper adjudication on all three issues. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns three issues: a loan treated as deemed dividend, a gift from son-in-law treated as income, and addition of interest on a loan. The CIT(A) order confirming these additions was found to be non-speaking and lacked adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the issues of deemed dividend, gift income, and interest on loans. The primary issue was the non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 02.08.2022Pronounced: 02.08.2022

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy in dated 08.07.2019. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Thiruchirappalli for the 2 assessment year 2013-14 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 29.03.2016.

2.

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.22,72,034/- by treating the loan received from Gaja Priya Hotels Pvt. Ltd., as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. The second issue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the gift received from son-in-law to the extent of Rs.3.80 lakhs as income of the assessee. The third issue is as regards to addition of interest of Rs.29,35,730/- towards loan from Reliance Capital as unproved or not for the purpose of business.

3.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that on all the above three issues, the CIT(A)’s order is totally non-speaking and none of the facts either CIT(A) could not understand or he has not adjudicated. We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noted that how these three additions are confirmed, it is not at all clear and there is no adjudication. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, particularly the order of CIT(A), he also could not explain how the CIT(A) has confirmed these three additions. In such circumstances,

3 the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this case is represented by assessee’s wife for her late husband Shri M. Ganesan and assessee’s case in the name of Smt. G. Jayanthi Ganesan has already been set aside to the file of the AO and accordingly, the matter can be restored back to the file of the AO again.

4.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts, we are inclined to set aside the orders of AO and that of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd August, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →