9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act (in short "Act") for the AY 2004-05. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and Chairman for Vikas Educational Institutions Ltd (VEIL). The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2004-05 on 12/09/2005 admitting total income of Rs. 5,07,370/-. The return was processed summarily and subsequently the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (in short AO), based on the submissions made by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee has obtained a loan amount of Rs. 1,03,96,980/- from the company, which was assessed as deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee being a 25% share holder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 54,58,080/-. Aggrieved by the consequential order of the Ld. AO dated 30/06/2016, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal of the assessee in toto, keeping in view of the facts of the case, the assessee is entitled to the relief of Rs. 1,03,96,980/-. 2. Any other grounds those may be prayed at the time of hearing." However, we note that a consequential order has been passed by the Ld. AO on 30/06/2016 granting relief of Rs. 54,46,270/-. 4. Additionally, the assessee filed a petition for admission of additional grounds as below: "1. The Ld. AO was not justified in reope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as part of reserves and surplus of the company. The Ld. DR therefore contended that the company had sufficient accumulated profits and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are attracted. The Ld. DR relied on the following case laws and pleaded that the orders of the lower authorities shall be sustained. (i) DCIT vs. Sh. Anuj Nagpal, ITA No.3840/Del/2011, dated 13/7/2012. [ITAT, Delhi Bench decision]. (ii) NCK Sons Exports (P.) Ltd vs. ITO, reported in 102 ITD 311 (Mum.). (iii) Empee Holdings Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2019] 112 taxmann.com 319 (Chennai. Trib.) 8. We have heard both the sides and gone through the materials available on record and the order of the Authorities below. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act subject to verification of certain tax challans as detailed in para 5.7 and 5.8 of the CIT(A)‟s order. We also note that the Ld. AO has rightly considered the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) and passed the consequential order revising the order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO while passing the consequential order. 10. With respect to issue raised in additional grounds of appeal regarding reopening of the case U/s. 148 of the Act, we find from the record that the Ld. AO has rightly given the reasons for such reopening and reopening is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
