J.U. KULKARNI,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nashik on 29.06.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09.

2 ITA No. 1991/PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called `the Act’) amounting to

Rs.33,36,513/- in the hands of the assessee.

a director in M/s.Vaibhav Engineering Pvt. Ltd. holding 47.09% of

shares. The assessee is also a partner in M/s. Saptshrungi Switchgear,

in which he has share of 25%. During the scrutiny assessment

proceedings in the case of M/s. Saptshrungi Switchgear, it was found

that the firm had received a loan of Rs.2,90,29,571/- from M/s.

Vaibhav Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer of the above firm

treated the loans as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act in the

hands of M/s. Saptshrungi Switchgear. This addition was deleted by

the CIT(A) holding that deemed dividend should be assessed in the

hands of the share holder. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, made

addition of Rs.33,36,513/- in the hands of the assessee u/s. 2(22)(e) of

the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.

available on record. The ld. AR, at the very outset, fairly conceded that

this issue is no more res-integra in view of the direct judgment of the

Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Sahir Sami Khatib Vs.

Income Tax Officer, (2018) 98 taxmann.com 453 ( Bombay) in which

similar issue has been decided against the assessee. In view of the

candid admission made by the ld. AR, I uphold the impugned order.

3 ITA No. 1991/PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09

arguments by the ld. AR.

ITO, Ward 3(1) Nashik had no jurisdiction to issue notice and hence,

assessment should be set aside. In support of this contention, he relied

on reply given by the Income tax Department under RTI Act detailing

jurisdiction of the assessee from time to time. As per the reply given

under the RTI Act, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with Circle-2,

Nashik from 16.09.2011 to 12.02.2015. This was opposed by the ld.

DR.

details of jurisdiction of the assessee. On a specific query, ld. AR

submitted that assessee filed return with Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1),

Nashik who issued the notice on 08.10.2013. The ld. AR also admitted

that during proceedings before the Assessing Officer, he never raised

any objection regarding jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. It is only

based on reply received by assessee under the RTI that the question of

jurisdiction has been raised. If the jurisdiction of the Assessing

Officer is correct as per the assessee, it cannot be challenged before the

Tribunal merely because a wrong reply was given under the RTI Act.

For such a wrong reply, necessary remedy lies elsewhere and not

under the Act. In view of foregoing discussion, I reject the additional

ground raised by assessee.

4 ITA No. 1991/PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. Order pronounced on 13th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- R.S. SYAL उपा�य� /VICE-PRESIDENT

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 13th December, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeal)-1, Nashik. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

5 ITA No. 1991/PUN/2016 A.Y.2008-09

Date 1 Draft dictated on 13.12.2018 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 13.12.2018 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

*