ITO 8(2)(3), MUMBAI V. MOONRISE ENGG. ( BOM) P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1193/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8817 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS KUSUM INGLE
• Assessee Lawyers: STANY SALDANHA
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.1192 & 1193/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 200 4-05) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(2)(3), R.NO.212, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S.MOONRISE ENGG.(BOM)P.LTD. PRATEEKSHA, NORTH SOUTH ROAD, 10 JVPD SCHEME, MUMBAI-400 049. PAN:AADCM2180R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. KUSUM INGLE, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI STANY SALDANHA O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR, PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 A ND 2004- 05. THE COMMON GROUND IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 AND RS.2,51,25,000/-FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM M/S. LOTUS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 2. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE LEARNED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.4533/MUM/2009 DATED 28 TH MAY, 2010 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN WHICH A SIMILAR GROUN D HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN GROUND ON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IS THAT M/S. LOT US INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(2 2)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE FACTUAL POSITION REMAINS THE SAME FOR THE YEARS UND ER APPEAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ITA NO.1192 & 1193/MUM/10 2 ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. WE MAY ADD THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE TRIBUNAL HAS APPLIED THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT.LT D. (2009) 27 SOT 270. THE APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED W ITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 9 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- ( B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED 19 TH JANUARY, 2011. SOMU COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-8, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-17 , MUMBAI 5. THE DR J BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI