SUNILKUMAR O KOCHHAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2937/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the additional ground raised by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to first decide the additional ground and then other grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning an addition made under Section 2(22)(e). The assessee had also raised an additional ground before the CIT(A) regarding the lack of an opportunity to be heard, which was not decided by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deciding an additional ground of appeal regarding the opportunity of being heard. The impact of this additional ground on the other grounds of appeal.

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, E Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subramaniyam
For Respondent: Shri V. Justine
Hearing: 30.10.2017Pronounced: 31.10.2017

Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 04.02.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has taken as many as 12 grounds of appeal. All these grounds mainly relate to the issue regarding addition made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

3. At the outset we noted that the assessee has taken ground No. 8 before us which reads as under: -

“8) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the C.I.T.(A) erred in not giving any finding to the additional ground of appeal which was submitted to the C.I.T.(A) on 09/01/2013 in the course of hearing and which runs as follows: - 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was not given opportunity of being heard to submit his reply Shri Sunilkumar O. Kochhar on the various reasoning as relied upon by the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,15,96,360/- being income from deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) is made.”

4. After hearing rival submissions on this ground in our opinion, will have bearing on the decision of other grounds. We found that the assessee had taken this ground as an additional ground before the CIT(A) on 09.01.2013. The CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee has not decided the ground. Neither he has admitted nor rejected the said ground. If the assessee had taken a ground as additional ground, the CIT(A) is bound to give a finding whether he is admitting the ground or not. If the ground is admitted he is bound to decide the ground on merit treating this ground to be part of the main ground. In our view this additional ground taken by the assessee before the CIT(A) will have a bearing on the other grounds taken by the assessee before the CIT(A) and it will affect the decision of the CIT(A). We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the additional ground as well other grounds to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the CIT(A) should first decide the additional ground on merits in case he admits the additional ground. Once the additional ground is decided the other ground are also be decided afresh in accordance with law as this additional ground, in our opinion, will have a bearing on the other grounds taken by the assessee.

5.

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

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 →