TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to petitioner on 24th January, 2015, Revenue has argued in this court on 4th July, 2014 that the conclusion of CIT (A)) was erroneous and addition should have been actually in the hands of PGPL. One of the substantial question of law proposed in the appeal filed in this court by Revenue in IMPACT CONTAINERS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS [ 2014 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in holding that deemed dividend is taxable only in the hands of a shareholder and not in the hands of a non-shareholder, by relying on the decisions without appreciating that the ratio of the decisions in the above cited case has not been accepted by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. (KFPL). 3. Petitioner s case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was completed on 27th October, 2010 accepting income returned by petitioner at ₹ 13,76,281/-. 4. In PGPL petitioner held 5000 shares and filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 by declaring total income of Rs. NIL. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny by the Deputy CIT-8(2), Mumbai and the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act came to be passed on 24th December, 2010. The Deputy CIT-8(2), Mumbai after raising a query on the share holding pattern of PGPL and KFPL from whom PGPL had taken loan of ₹ 1,22,80,000/-, pass the assessment order taxing from PGPL a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue s stand is that finding of the (CIT (A)) was incorrect to the extent that the amount of ₹ 1,07,33,270/- being addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was to be made in the hands of petitioner who had substantial interest in PGPL and KFPL and not in the hands of PGPL. But when we consider the reasons for re-opening which is dated 24th January, 2014, the stand of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is that the findings of (CIT (A)) that the addition of ₹ 1,07,33,270/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09 should be made in the hands of petitioner who is substantial shareholder in PGPL and KFPL is correct and therefore the amount of ₹ 1,07,33,270/- has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to disclose truly and fully material facts. 9. In the circumstances, we find merit in petitioner s case and allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under : (a) that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to the issue of the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25th January, 2014 (Exh. C ) and the order dated 16th March, 2015 rejecting the objections of the Petitioner being Ex. F hereto and after going through the same and examining the question of legality thereof to quash, cancel and set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
