Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. Shri Sanjay Seth, Lucknow

ITA 704/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4623 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H P SINGH
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.704/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 SHRI SANJAY SETH, 701-SHALIMAR APARTMENTS, PRAG NARAIN ROAD, LUCKNOW-226001 VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, LUCKNOW PAN ANXPS 7392 D (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR APPELLANT BY SHRI H.P. SINGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY 24/02/2016 DATE OF HEARING 15 /0 3 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS A REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 31.08.2015 FOR THE AY 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,68,332/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INCOM E FROM UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS POINTED OUT IN THE VALUATION. 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S. 1,10,88,418/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF 'DEEMED DIVIDEND' ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PE R PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 . 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ON E OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE A S AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. LD. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A). 4. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 597/LKW/2013 DATED 17.06.2015. H E SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT TWO ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL. THE FIRST ISSU E IS REGARDING DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.56 ,68,332/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIA L HOUSE. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS.1,10,88,418/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ALSO, IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, SA ME TWO ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. 3 6. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DI FFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GA RODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED: 15/03/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.TH E RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR