Commissioner of Income Tax-II V. M/s.Golden Gate Infortech Limited

ITTA/94/2013

AI Insights

The case involved an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad against M/s. Golden Gate Infotech Ltd. concerning the tax assessment for the year 2007-2008. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.15,00,000 to the assessee's income, which the Tribunal found was not substantiated by any incriminating material or deficiencies in the books of account. The Tribunal's decision was based on the facts presented and the lack of legal basis for the addition. The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's findings and the arguments presented, agreed with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719126 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Singh (295 ITR 9), Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2004 dated 19.11.2004)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Additional income; Assessment Year; Deemed dividend; Income Tax
• Section: 2(22)(e)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No. 94 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND M/s. Golden Gate Infotech Ltd., 304, 3rd Floor, VV Vintage Boulvard, Somajiguda, Hyderabad .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that no element of law point is involved in this matter, as the learned Tribunal has decided the matter appreciating facts. We appropriately quote the finding of the learned Tribunal: “…From the above statement it is clear that what was offered to be paid was a tax of Rs.5,00,000/- for the assessment year 2007-2008. In the absence of any specific mention that the said tax offered to be paid was over and above the tax payable on the income that may be returned in the normal course, when the assessee filed the return admitting an income of Rs.17,44,060/- and paid taxes due thereon, which exceeded Rs.5,00,000/- one has to conclude that the assessee stood by commitment made in the statement, and complied with the same. We also find at some places in the documents filed before us, some references to the expression ‘additional income’ and the same is not supported by any incriminating material. The statement taken on oath from the Director also does not refer to any discrepancies noted by the Survey Party. Taking such disclosure into account, the impugned addition made by the assessing officer is not as per law. In any event, the impugned additional is merely basing on the above statement and without pointing out any deficiencies in the books of account or brining on record any material to substantiate the addition of Rs.15,00,000/-. In the circumstances, this addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained…” With regard to the revenue appeal, the learned Tribunal has held on facts as follows: “…Considering the fact that Shri K.Pratap is a shareholder of both the companies in his individual capacity, and the assessee company itself is not the shareholders, in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Singh (295 ITR 9) and the Special Bench )Mumbai) of the Tribunal in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2004 dated 19.11.2004), the provisions of S.2(22)(e) of does apply to the facts of the present case, and the advance of Rs.1,23,50,000/- received by the assessee company cannot be treated as deemed dividend…” In view of the above findings of the learned Tribunal, we feel that Tribunal did commit not any wrong. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. __________ G.Rohini, J. June 26, 2013 MAS "