Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
This Revenue’s appeal, for the assessment year 2008- 2009, arise against the CIT(A), Trivandrum, Trivandrum’s order in ITA.No.104/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2010-11, dated 25.11.2016, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act").
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 ITA.No.26/COCH./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made by the A.O towards unexplained credit u/s 68 of IT Act on the basis of evidence produced/explanation made during appeal proceedings and also erred in deleting a part of addition made by the A.O towards Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of IT Act
The deletion of Rs.1,98,86,558/- limited to the extend AO has conceded in remand report is without coming to a satisfaction regarding (a) identity (b) genuiness and (c) credit worthiness in view of recording by Lt. CIT(A) such as "substantial amount", "could have been credited amount of money received from appellant's mother.....", "Rs.1,20,69,000/- to be received by 30.06.2007..." in his order. The Ltd. CIT(A) ought to have noted that the onus is on assessee to conclusively establish the entire sequence of transaction resulting in the receipt of sums. The deletion based on probabilities and surmises is wrong.
3 ITA.No.26/COCH./2017 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sustained Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.3,99,906/- and Rs.26,00,000/- out of addition of Rs.1,80,60,000/-, Rs.4,82,094/- and Rs.27,00,000/- respectively.
4. Deemed Dividend Lt.CIT(A) ought to have noted that as per section 2(22)(e) the dividend include any payment (total sum of receipt) made by the company by way of loan or advance to a shareholder holding not less than 10 percent of voting power w.r.t accumulated profit. CIT(A) restricted it to maximum amount of loan which is against the provisions of that section. The decision of Lt.CIT(A) is not in accordance with provisions of section 2(22)(e) in matters like maximum amount, sum claimed to be received by wife of appellant etc.
5. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Appeals, Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.”
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that there is hardly any much a need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix 4 ITA.No.26/COCH./2017 so far as the Revenue’s above extracted substantive grounds on merits are concerned. This is for the precise reason that learned CIT(A) had sought a remand report from the Assessing Officer which came to be filed on 08.05.2014 reading as under :
5 ITA.No.26/COCH./2017 6 ITA.No.26/COCH./2017
It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue could hardly dispute that the CIT(A) has precisely acted on the basis of the Assessing Officer’s remand report only whilst deciding the corresponding issue(s) in assessee’sfavour. Faced with this situation, we quote CIT vs. D.M. Purnesh [2020] 426 ITR 169 (Kar.); Smt. B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) to conclude that once the learned assessing authority has itself accepted the assessee’s corresponding claim(s) in above terms, the Revenue could hardly be held to as an aggrieved party against the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned addition(s). Ordered accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
7 ITA.No.26/COCH./2017 Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.11.2024.