TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered view that there are several decisions of the Hon ble High Courts which are in favour of the assessee and some decisions may be in favour of the revenue. This shows that multiple views are possible on the same set of facts. The AO has followed one plausible view and the Pr. CIT is of different view. When two views are possible assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is unwarranted and bad in law as held by the Hon ble Supreme court in Malabar Industries Company[ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) on the facts of the case in hand we set aside the order of the Pr. CIT framed u/s. 263 of the Act and restore that of the assessing officer dated framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 17.08.2017 the AO framed the assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Act and the income declared at Rs.96,76,449/- was assessed at Rs.28,41,27,590/-. 6. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of section 263 of the Act the Pr. CIT issued show cause notice to the assessee alleging that since the assessee is a beneficial owner of shares holding 12% of the voting power in AMQ Agro India Private Limited and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act squarely apply on the facts of the case. 7. Referring to the financial transactions, the Pr. CIT dismissed the contentions of the assessee that it is a running account having business transactions, therefore, section 2(22)(e) does not apply. 8. The Pr. CIT a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The seized material found during the search shows clearly that he was indulging in accounted business transactions regularly. It is, therefore, held that the decision in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) is not applicable here and, considering the ratio of the decisions that are, the income under consideration was very much subject matter of the assessment. 5. In view of the foregoing analysis, it is held that the assessment order in question is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of law discussed above, it is held that an amount of Rs.2,26,923/- had accrued to the assessee by way of dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act but the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view was taken by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mita Gutgutia and the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singhad Education Society. The Pr. CIT has referred to some judicial decision of the Hon ble High Court in support of his order. 13. We are of the considered view that there are several decisions of the Hon ble High Courts which are in favour of the assessee and some decisions may be in favour of the revenue. This shows that multiple views are possible on the same set of facts. The AO has followed one plausible view and the Pr. CIT is of different view. When two views are possible assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is unwarranted and bad in law as held by the Hon ble Supreme court in Malabar Industries Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
