SH. GURUCHARAN DASS ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7048/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2017AY 2005-066 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had already allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the Section 263 order. Therefore, the issues in the present appeals became academic and infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order upholding assessment orders passed under Section 153A read with Section 263. The CIT's order under Section 263 was passed to revise earlier assessment orders concerning deemed dividend. The assessee had previously appealed the Section 263 order before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals are infructuous due to a prior ITAT order quashing the Section 263 proceedings which formed the basis of the current assessment orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 153A,Section 263,Section 250(6),Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

For Appellant: Ms. SOUMYA SINGH, ADV

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM:

These 03 appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the common order dated 07.8.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2005-06 to 2007-08. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2 The following are the common grounds raised in all the appeals, except the difference in amount:- i) That on the facts and in law, the order of the learned CIT

(Appeal) is illegal, erroneous, unjust, arbitrary, based on surmises and conjectures, against the principles of natural justice and without application of judicious mind. ii) That the evidence and explanation given by the appellant and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judiciously interpreted. iii) That the additions made have been upheld on basis of mere surmises and conjectures and contrary to facts and evidence on record and cannot be justified by any material on record. iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts. and law In upholding additions of Rs. 4,83,360/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,

1961. vi) That the charging of interests u/s. 234A, 234B have been wrongly and illegally upheld. The appellant has not committed any default of payment of Advance tax as it could not have anticipated such additions. vii) That the appellant craves your honour's leave to add, alter, modify, mange, substitute, withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at any stage of appellant proceedings

3.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the above mentioned appeals are filed against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AYrs. 2005-06 to 2007-08 dated 07.8.2014 passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upholding the assessment orders passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 263 of the Act. She further stated that the assessment orders for AY 2005-06 to 2007-08 dated 20.9.2013 in the above noted appeals were passed pursuant to the order dated 13.3.2013 of the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. She further stated that aggrieved with the order dated 13.3.2013 of the Ld. CIT, assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2016 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the order u/s. 263. She further stated that in view of above mentioned order of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2016, the issues involved in the present appeals have become academic in nature.

5.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below, but did not controvert the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. We find that a search was initiated uls 132 of the Act on the Dawat Group on 10.02.2009.

Subsequently, assessment orders for each AY. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 dated 30.12.2010 uls 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were passed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Thereafter, Ld. CIT passed an order dated 13.03.2013 uls 263 to revise the assessment order passed uls 153A r.w.s. 143(3) w.r.t. the issue of deemed dividend. Aggrieved by the said order of CIT uls 263, the assessee preferred an appeal against the order of revision before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide a common order dated 31.10.2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee for all the A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and quashed the order uls 263 passed by the CIT. We further note that the above noted appeals by assessee are against the common order of the CIT(A) for AY. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 dated 07.08.2014 passed uls 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upholding the assessment orders passed uls 153A-r.w.s.

263.

The assessment orders for AY. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 dated 20.09.2013 in the above noted appeals were passed pursuant to the order of the CIT uls 263. Hence, in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2016, the issues in the present appeals have become infructuous as the Tribunal vide order dated 310.10.2016 has quashed the proceedings uls 263. As regards, A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee had made an additional submission that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) shall not apply on assessee as the company, in which the assessee is a director and which is alleged to have given loan to the assessee, had become a public limited company. The Tribunal has duly taken note of the said submission of the assessee in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.7. Further, in A.Y. 2007-08, the Tribunal at paragraph 5.6 placed reliance and followed the decision dated 28.07.2016 of co-ordinate bench in the case of Ashok Arora in for A.Y. 2007-08 wherein identical facts and issues were involved. The Tribunal at paragraph 5.7 has observed that "As the decision in the case of Ashok Arora (supra) is on similar facts, we are inclined to follow the same”. In the said case of Ashoka Arora, the Tribunal after discussing the facts and legal position in detail, at paragraph 14, quashed the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. In view of the above, the issues involved in the present appeals raised by the assessee have become infructuous, hence, the same are dismissed as such.

7.

In the result, all the 03 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand dismissed.

Order pronounced on 28/09/2017.

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 →