Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 128 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Addition as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee - Assessee has received a loan from Leela Tubes Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee had 51.42% share and also key managerial personnel in the company having more than 20% share holding during the Financial Year - HELD THAT:-As decided in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2013-14 [2018 (9) TMI 2108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] we are of the considered opinion that assessee had received an amount from M/s.Leela Tube Pvt.Ltd. (LTPL) in order to safe-guard the interest of the company and the same was done in order to protect the interest of the company and assessee even sought help from his relatives and placed as security the ancestral House being Flat No.203 at Shripalnagar, Ahmedabad. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this was for the business expediency and same cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition As a result, Assessee’s ground of appeal is allowed. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not state whether the Revenue has filed any appeal against the above order of the Tribunal before Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The Ld. PCIT before passing this Revision order has not given due weightage to the Appellate order passed by the Tribunal, which is against the fundamental principle of Judicial Discipline, that is required to be followed by all the lower authorities. Not following the Judicial Discipline by the highest Officer of the Income Tax Department is highly deprecated. In this connection, it is appropriate to rely upon the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.” Respectfully following the above ruling of the Apex Court we have no hesitation in quashing the Revision order dated passed by the PCIT for the reason of nonconsideration of the higher judicial forums decision in assessee’s own case for earlier Assessment Year 2013-14 on identical issue. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
|