9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "1. Initiating proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act without there being any valid reason to form the belief of the escapement of income. 2. Passing order u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 9,53,380/- against the already determined income of Rs. 2,73,424/-. 3. In making an addition in a sum of Rs. 6,79,956/- treating the transaction between M/s. RCMC share Registry Pvt. Limited and M/s. PAN Portfolios Pvt. Limited as deemed dividend taxable u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 4. In charging interest u/s. 234B of the Act in a sum of Rs. 1,90,180/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a common director in two companies, viz., M/s. RCMC Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. (RCMC) and M/s. PAN Portfolio Pvt. Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the order of the CIT(A) stood confirmed vide order dated 12.03.2010. 5. In view of the decision of ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s. PAN for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that a sum of Rs. 13,59,911/- which was liable to be assessed in the hands of common share holder, i.e., the appellant, has escaped assessment and after initiating the proceedings u/s. 147/148, assessed a sum of Rs. 6,79,956/- representing to 50% of the sum of Rs. 13,59,911/- in the hands of appellant, as he, in his individual capacity, held 50% shares in lender company M/s. RCMC. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in appeal before him. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 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, 203 ITR 456. 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 gri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
