TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the superstructure falls (sublato fundamento cadit opus). The grievance of the Revenue that in TDS proceedings, one must ignore the orders passed in the hands of the recipients, i.e., M/s. Siddhivinayak Realities Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Oberoi but the officers of the Revenue administering the TDS provisions are not outside the scope of the Act and orders passed under the Act in respect of the character of the payment made under the Act are binding upon them. The fact that at the time the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) was passed, there was basis to do so does not mean that orders passed on income in the hands of the recipients will have no bearing in deciding its validity. One must not ignore the fact that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end on a substantive basis in the hands of Siddhivinayak Realities Pvt. Ltd. and on a protective basis in the hands of its director Mr. Vikas Oberoi in their assessment ORDERS 4. Being aggrieved, both M/s. Siddhivinayak Realities Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Oberoi challenged their orders of assessment holding that they are in receipt of deemed dividend. Their appeals were allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) holding that they could not be charged to tax on the amount of ₹ 10.35 crores as recipients of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal which was dismissed. Thereafter, the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could arise. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue-appellant carried the issue in further appeal to the Tribunal. By order dated September 6, 2013, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that once the addition made on account of deemed dividend is deleted in the hands of the recipient of the amount of ₹ 10.35 crores, there could be no failure to deduct tax at source thereon. Thus the consequent demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act upon the respondent-assessee was not justified. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that no fault could be found with the order dated February 11, 2011, of the Assistant Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TDS provisions are not outside the scope of the Act and orders passed under the Act in respect of the character of the payment made under the Act are binding upon them. The fact that at the time the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) was passed, there was basis to do so does not mean that orders passed on income in the hands of the recipients will have no bearing in deciding its validity. One must not ignore the fact that this order of the TDS officer is tentative in nature and its existence would depend upon the nature of receipt in the hands of the recipient and subject to the orders passed in respect thereof by appropriate court. 9. In the above view, the question, as proposed by the Revenue, does not give ris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
