Sh. Amrit Sagar Mittal, Hoshiarpur V. The Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, Hoshiarpur

ITA 77/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 7720914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.77(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AASPM11020 SH. AMRIT SAGAR MITTAL, VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HOSHIARPUR. RANGE HOSHIARPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. VINAY MALHOTRA, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING:21/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:21/08/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 14.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,40,238/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND BOTH LAW & FACTS WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF PAYMENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE ACCRUED RENT & SALARY AS BUSINESS CONSIDERATION BUT HOLDING THAT ANY PAYMENT TO SHAREHOLDER IS A DEEMED DIVIDED WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. ITA NO.77(ASR)/2012 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERI NG THE EARLIER PAYMENTS MADE TO SHAREHOLDER & DEBITED TO HIS CURRE NT ACCOUNT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND HAS RESULTED INTO DEBIT BALANCE IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE FURTHER DEBIT BALANCE CAN BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR A MEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DI SPOSED OF. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT DISPUT ED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH VINAY MALHO TRA, CA FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 17.07.2012 ALONGWITH FORM NO.8, THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SUB: PRAY FOR BLOCKING THE APPEAL NO.77(ASR)/2012 IN CASE OF SH. AMRIT SAGAR MITTAL A.Y. 2006-07. SIR, PLEASE REFER TO THE SUBJECT MATTER NOTED ABOVE, TH E SAID APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 09.08.2012. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO .391 OF 2010. THE FORM NO.8 ALONGWITH THE COPY OF WRIT PETITION AS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IS E NCLOSED HEREWITH IN TRIPLICATE. THE CERTIFICATE OF ADVOCATE STATING THIS PETITION HAS BEEN ADMITTED FOR REGULAR HEARING IS ALSO ENCLOSED IN TR IPLICATE. ITA NO.77(ASR)/2012 3 IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS PRAY FOR BLOCKING THE AB OVE MENTIONED APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE PLACED BEFORE THE HONBLE BE NCH FOR THEIR KIND CONSIDERATION. HOPE YOUR GOODSELF WILL FIND THIS IN ORDER. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- CA VINAY MALAHOTRA) ATTORNEY DATED 17.07.2012 AND FORM NO.8 DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 158A1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO BE MADE BY AN ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT IDENTICAL Q UESTION OF LAW IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT I, AMRIT SAGGAR MITTAL SON OF SH. L.D. MITTAL, BEIN G THE INDIVIDUAL DO HEREBY DECLARE: 1. THAT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION(S) OF LAW IS PENDING IN MY CASE BEFORE THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ON A REFERENCE U/S 256/257 SUPREME COURT ON AN APPEAL U/S 261 IN RESPECT OF T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ** A COY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE QUE STION(S) OF LAW REFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSE ( ITA 39 1 OF 2010) 2. THAT THE SAID QUESTION(S) OF LAW IS IDENTICAL WI TH THE QUESTION(S) OF LAW ARISING IN MY CASE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH. 3. THAT IF THE . AGREES TO APPLY TO THE CASE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE THE FINAL DECISION ON THE QUESTIO N OF ITA NO.77(ASR)/2012 4 LAW IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 1 ABOVE, * * I/THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 ABOVE, SH ALL NOT RAISE THE SAID QUESTION(S) OF LAW IN THE CASE R EFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE IN APPEAL BEFORE ANY APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR FOR A REFERENCE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 256 OR THE SUPREME COURT U/S 256 OR IN APPE AL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION 261. SD/- SIGNATURE OF THE DECLARANT PAN AASPM1102D SONALIKA AGRO IND. CORPORATION; JALANDHAR ROAD, HOSHIARPUR 3.1 COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED 17.07.2012 A LONGWITH DECLARATION FORM NO.8 WERE SUPPLIED TO THE LD. DR ON 09.08.2012 FOR REPLY AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR HEARING ON 21.08.2012 I.E. FOR T ODAY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O TO DECIDE THE S AME AFTER THE DECISION OF ITA 391 OF 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IN THE CASE OF SH. AMRIT SAGAR MITTAL VS. CIT JALANDHAR & OTHERS, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATEMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION DATED 17.07.2012 ALONGWITH FORM NO.8, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTIC AL TO THE ISSUE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.77(ASR)/2012 5 ITA 391 OF 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. TH EREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WHICH WE HAVE RE PRODUCED AS GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HEREINA BOVE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE DECISION TO BE RENDERED BY THE HONB LE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE I.E. SH. AMRIT S AGAR MITTAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER IN ITA NO.39 1 OF 2010, WHICH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 158A O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WE ARE DISPOSING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS WITHOUT WAITING THE FINAL DECISION OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, SUBJECT TO SECTION 158A OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: AUGUST, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. AMRIT SAGGAR MITTAL, HOSHIARPUR. 2. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE HOSHIARPUR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY