Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 arose from an order by the CIT(A) deleting an addition of Rs. 1,94,70,000/- made on account of deemed dividend. The CIT(A)'s order was based on a previous order in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10, which also deleted an identical addition.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s decision was consistent with a prior ruling in the assessee's own case for a preceding year concerning a similar deletion of deemed dividend. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for an adjournment, finding no distinction in facts or law from the previous case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of deemed dividend, especially when a similar addition was deleted for a preceding year based on an identical issue.
Sections Cited
2(22)(e), 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Agra’s in case No. 92/CIT(A)-II/Agra/DCIT-4(1)/Agra/2013-14 dated 16.03.2015, in proceedings under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].
2. This Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal before us: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,94,70,000/- made on account of deemed dividend Shri Madhukar Kapur particularly on the basis of report of the ROC, without appreciating the facts of the case, especially that the case of the assessee was squarely covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Agra being erroneous in law and on facts deserves to be quashed and that of the Assessing Officer deserves to be restored.
That the appellant craves leave to add or alter any or more ground or grounds of appeal as may be deemed fit at the time of hearing of appeal.”
3. It emerges during the course of hearing that with the able assistance coming from both the parties that CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion at page 3 onwards has quoted earlier order in the assessee’s case itself for preceding assessment 2009-10 deleting identical Section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition relating to buy-back of shares, forming subject matter of adjudication herein.
4. We make it clear that although the learned departmental representative had raised a very strong contention to get matter adjourned, we hereby reject the same in light of the fact that the sole issue has nowhere been stated to be involving any distinction on facts or law, as the case may be. That being the case, we uphold the learned CIT(A) action deleting the impugned deemed dividend addition. Ordered accordingly.