Sh. Gurucharan Dass Arora, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 7049/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4490 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN CHANDRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 7048, 7049 & 7050/DEL/2014 A.YRS.: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 SH. GURUCHARAN DASS ARORA, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -19 UNIT NO. 134, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW DELHI RECTANGLE-I, SAKET DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI 110 017 (PAN: AALPA6448F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. SOUMYA SINGH, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, CIT(D R) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THESE 03 APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 07.8.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, N EW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2007-08. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS, EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT:- 2 I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEAL) IS ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS, UNJUST, ARBITRARY, B ASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF JUDICIOUS MIND. II) THAT THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE A PPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIOUSLY INTERPRETED. III) THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE HAVE BEEN UPHELD ON BASIS OF MERE SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. IV) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS. AND LAW IN UPHOLDING ADDITIONS OF RS. 4,83,360/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. VI) THAT THE CHARGING OF INTERESTS U/S. 234A, 234B HAV E BEEN WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY UPHELD. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AS IT COULD NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED SUCH ADDITIONS. 3 VII) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES YOUR HONOUR'S LEAVE TO A DD, ALTER, MODIFY, MANGE, SUBSTITUTE, WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDI NGS 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR AYRS. 2005-06 TO 2007-0 8 DATED 07.8.2014 PASSED U/S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961, UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S. 153A R.W .S. 263 OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR AY 2005-06 TO 2007-08 DATED 20.9.2013 IN THE ABOVE NOTED APPEALS WERE PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2013 OF THE LD. CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT AGGRIEVE D WITH THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2013 OF THE LD. CIT, ASSESSEE PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2016 HA S ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE ORDER U/S. 263. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT IN VIEW OF ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.2016, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL S HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 4 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION S OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE FIND THAT A SEARCH WAS INITIATED ULS 132 OF THE ACT ON THE DAWAT GROUP ON 10.02.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH AY. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 DATED 30.12.2010 ULS 153A R.W.S. 143(3) WERE PASSED ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, LD. CIT PASSED AN ORDER DATED 13.03.2013 ULS 263 TO REVI SE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ULS 153A R.W.S. 143(3) W.R.T. THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF CIT ULS 263, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF REV ISION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE A COMMON ORDER DA TED 31.10.2016 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE A.Y. 2 005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND QUASHED THE ORDER ULS 263 PASS ED BY THE CIT. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY. 2005-06 , 2006-07 & 2007-08 DATED 07.08.2014 PASSED ULS 250(6) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UL S 153A-R.W.S. 263. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR AY. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 DATED 20.09.2013 IN THE ABOVE NOTED APPEALS WERE PAS SED PURSUANT 5 TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT ULS 263. HENCE, IN VIEW OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.2016, THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 310.10.2016 HAS QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS ULS 263. AS REGARDS, A. Y. 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) SHALL NOT APPLY ON ASSESSEE AS THE COMPANY, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR AND WHICH IS ALLEGE D TO HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, HAD BECOME A PUBLIC LIMITED COMP ANY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY TAKEN NOTE OF THE SAID SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE IN PARAGRAPHS 5.3 TO 5.7. FURTHER, IN A.Y. 2007-08, T HE TRIBUNAL AT PARAGRAPH 5.6 PLACED RELIANCE AND FOLLOWED THE DECI SION DATED 28.07.2016 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASHO K ARORA IN ITA NO. 3024/DE1L2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN IDENTICA L FACTS AND ISSUES WERE INVOLVED. THE TRIBUNAL AT PARAGRAPH 5.7 HAS OBSERVED THAT 'AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASHOK ARORA (SUP RA) IS ON SIMILAR FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE SAME. IN THE SAID CASE OF ASHOKA ARORA, THE TRIBUNAL AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IN DETAIL, AT PARAGRAPH 14, QUASHED THE PRO CEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ISSUES INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME I NFRUCTUOUS, HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 6 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 03 APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28/09/2017. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 28/09/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR