RAMANI INVESTMENTS,SALEM vs. DCIT, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 81/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 August 2017AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine whether the investment in shares was made by the partnership firm or individual partners, considering recent Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. An identical issue for a prior assessment year had been remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) concerning investments in shares. The tribunal needs to ascertain the capacity in which the investment was made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 26.07.2017Pronounced: 23.08.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, dated 9.12.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The only issue arises for consideration is addition made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

3.

Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that an identical issue was considered by this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 in the assessee's own case and this Tribunal by an order dated 17.07.2015 remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to bring on record whether the investment in shares of M/s Ramani Automotive Pvt. Ltd. was made by the partnership firm or by the partners in the individual capacity and thereafter decide in accordance with law after considering the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. National Travel Services (2012) 347 ITR 305.

4.

We have heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that an identical issue was considered by this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 and the issue was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he has no objection to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration also. However, the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the latest judgment of Supreme Court on this issue in Gopal And Sons (HUF) v. CIT in Civil Appeal No.12274 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017 in addition to judgment of Delhi High Court.

5.

We have heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative. This Tribunal found that an identical issue was examined by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11. This Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the matter and bring on record whether the investment in shares of M/s Ramani Automotive Pvt. Ltd. was made by the partnership firm or by the individual partners in their individual capacity and thereafter decide the matter after considering the judgment of Delhi High Court in National Travel Services (supra).

6.

As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, now there is a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Gopal And Sons (HUF) (supra). In view of above, the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-examine in the light of latest judgment of Apex Court in Gopal And Sons (HUF) (supra).

Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and bring on record whether the investment in shares of M/s Ramani Automotive Pvt. Ltd. was made by the partnership firm or by the partners in their individual capacity and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after considering the judgment of Delhi High Court in National Travel Services (supra) and the judgment of Apex Court in Gopal & Sons (HUF) (supra).

7.

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

Order pronounced on 23rd August, 2017 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 →