MR. V.P ABDUL KAREEM,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Since, the assessee has raised identical issue in all these appeals, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

First, we take up the appeal for AY 2008-09 wherein the only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the

In the present case, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as detailed below: -

On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned A.R. before us filed a paper book running from page 1 to 42 and contended that subsequent to the assessment order, an order by the District Court, Kozhikode dated 31.03.2016 was passed holding that the assessee was neither a shareholder nor a Director in the company namely, M/s. Golsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the learned A.R. contended that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be attracted on the alleged loan received by the assessee.

It was further submitted that the learned Pr. CIT vide order dated 03.08.2017 also observed that the impugned property was attached by the TRO holding that the property belongs to the company.

As per the learned A.R. the above stated facts were emerged after the assessment order which were never considered by the AO. Likewise, the learned A.R. also pointed out that the above stated facts were not brought to the notice of the learned CIT(A) while passing the order.The learned A.R. in support of his contention has filed affidavit before us. In nutshell,the learned A.R. contended that the to 846/Coch/2022 V.P. Abdul Kareem impugned document needs to be verified at the level of the AO and accordingly prayed to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per provisions of law.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR did not raise any objection if the issue on hand is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. After going through the records discussed above, we inclined to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for necessary verification so as to apply the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO for making fresh assessment as per the provisions of law and after considering the new development about the case discussed above. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Following the above discussion, the other two appeals of the assessee of AYs 2009-10 and 2011-12 are also allowed for statistical purposes.