Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2016 (2) TMI 793 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - First is validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings and the second taxability on a sum of Rs. 6, 79, 956/- representing to 50% of the sum of Rs. 13, 59, 911/- in the hands of appellant. As to the validity of re assessment proceedings we do not find any justification to disturb the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly held the action as valid laying his hands on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO 1993 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court . In the present case the Assessing Officer received information after appellate order in the case of PAN Portfolio (P) Ltd. wherein the CIT(A) has given the direction to take action in the case of the assessee. Therefore initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 on this count cannot be said to be invalid. Besides after receipt of reasons recorded no such grievance/objection on initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 appears to have been raised at the initial stage before the Assessing Officer. Therefore finding on validity of re-assessment proceedings stands confirmed. Once the taxability of the impugned sum as deemed dividend in the hands of the common directors of the lender company stood decided by the Tribunal and attained finality we have no option except to respectfully follow the decision of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in order to maintain the balance of justice. No such evidence is available on record that the order of the Tribunal has either been challenged or reversed by the higher courts. Furthermore a perusal of the assessment order reveals the assessee in reply dated 05.09.2013 filed before the AO submitted that the assessee did not derive any benefit from the loans obtained from M/s. PAN Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. and no such plea appears to have been made before the AO that the transaction between the two companies was not in the nature of loan but an inter corporate deposit not attracting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In view of this discussion we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order on this count too. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. - Decided against assessee.
|