The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Mahesh N.Vyas, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 848/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0114 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 32; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I .T(SS). A. NOS. 848/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 03-04) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD V/S SHRI MAHESH N. VYAS 14, ASHWAMEGHA BUNGLOWS, PART-IV, SATELITE ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NOS. 52,53 & 54/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04, 20 06-07 & 2007-08) SHRI MAHESH N. VYAS 14, ASHWAMEGHA BUNGLOWS, PART-IV, SATELITE ROAD, AHMEDABAD V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAMPV3026D APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. VAISHNAV, CIT D. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 10-04-201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 -05-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE 4 APPEALS, ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND TH E OTHER 3 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, AHME DABAD DATED 19.10.2010 FOR A.YS. 2003-04, 2006-07 & 2007-08. IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 2 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMI TTED THAT THE FACTS IN ALL THE 4 APPEALS (ONE OF REVENUE AND 3 OF ASSESSEE) ARISE OU T OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ALL THE 4 YEARS AND MOST OF THE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE COMM ON SUBMISSIONS TO MAKE AND THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOG ETHER. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER BY W AY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND PROCEED WITH THE FA CTS FOR AY 2003-04. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME, SHARE FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE AC T WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE JOHN GROUP ON 23.10.2007 AND A SEARCH WARRANT U/S 1 32 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER IN PU RSUANCE TO NOTICE DATED 24.7.2009 ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.10.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 13,24,200/- . THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 153A RWS 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDE R DATED 23.12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS 34,24,200/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT( A) BY A COMBINED ORDER DATED 19.10.2010 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FOR AY 2 003-04 AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR AY 2003-04 A ND ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR AY 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 4. THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE COM PANY JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD. AFTER UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT T HE AMOUNT SO ADVANCED AND TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND BY THE A.O. IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- HOL DING THAT THE SUM ADVANCED IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 3 WAS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE ON ACCOUNT OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED BY THE COMPANY AS GODOWN FOR STORAGE PURPO SES. 5. THOUGH REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS THE ON LY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND: 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAID LOAN/ADVANCE OF RS 21 LACS BY JOHN OIL & GAS LTD A COMPANY, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A SHAREHOLDER HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. AO HAS NOTED THAT BEFORE HIM IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COM PANY HAD DECLARED DIVIDEND IN EARLIER YEARS AND HAD NOT ACCUMULATED P ROFIT BY DAMAGING THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF OTHER SHAREHOLDERS AND THE AD VANCE WERE MADE FOR DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE COMPANY HAD ALS O CHARGED INTEREST AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION. 2(22)(E) OF TH E ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEP TABLE TO THE AO. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ADVANCE WAS OUT OF A CCUMULATED PROFITS, PROVISION OF S. 2(22)(E) WERE APPLICABLE AND HE ACC ORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS 21 LACS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.R. ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS SUBSTA NTIAL ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD. IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THAT IS, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08. HE THEREFORE, DI D NOT ARGUE ANYTHING ON THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES HAS BEEN GIVEN T O THE APPELLANT OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS. HOWEVER, THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE LOANS A ND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT BY THE COMPANY ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT WAS ALSO ADMI TTED BY HIM THAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE COMPANY IS NOT FINANCING. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -- 04, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LA CS WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD BUT IT WAS MERELY A JOURNAL EN TRY BY WHICH THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE CONSULTANT NIRALI PATEL WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE APPE LLANT. ON SUCH ADVANCES, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PAID INTEREST TO THE COMPANY. IN PRINCIPLE, I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT-THAT A JOURNAL ENTRY PASSED WOULD NOT FALL IN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNLESS NIRALI PATEL HAD GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RS,.6 LAKH TO THE APPELLANT . IN SHORT, IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LAKH HAS BEEN PAID BY NIRALI PATEL ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD, THEN ONLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W OULD BE ATTRACTED. THIS SECTION TALKS ABOUT ACTUAL PAYMENT AND NOT MERELY AN ENTRY PASSED BY JO URNAL. THE AO THEREFORE, WOULD VERIFY WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS . 6 LAKH FROM NIRALI PATEL DURING THE IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 4 FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. IF THE AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY R ECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HER, THEN ONLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIV IDEND WILL BE SUSTAINED OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE TREATED AS DELETED. IT WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LAKH HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE A PPELLANT FROM NIRALI PATEL. IF THE APPELLANT FAILS TO PROVE, IN THAT CASE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LAKH UNDER SECTION 2(22) WOULD STAND CONFIRMED. 6.1. AS REGARDS THE ADVANCE OF RS. 15 LAKH RECEIVED FROM JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD ON 10/05/2002, THE AR PRODUCED BEFORE ME THE RELEVANT PAPERS FROM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEHSANA SHOWING THAT BLOCK NUMBER 342 ADMEASURING 15,378 M 2 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED AND REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLA NT ON 23/5/2000 FOR RUPEES 650,000. ANOTHER LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 924 ADMEASURING 13,912 SQUARE METRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN AHMEDABAD DISTRICT WAS REGISTERED ON 20/11/ 2001 FOR RUPEES 20 LACS. THE LAND AT MEHSANA WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL BY ZILL A PANCHAYAT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 5/7/2006 . AN AGREEMENT DATED 1 /12/2001 WAS SIGNED BY THE A PPELLANT WITH JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD AS PER WHICH BOTH THESE LANDS ADMEASURING 15,378 M 2 AND 13,912 SQUARE METRES WOULD BE USED BY THE COMPANY FOR KEEPING ITS VEHICLES, MACHI NERIES AND ITS STOCK FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND MAY BE EXTENDED BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT. THE COMPANY JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD WILL GI VE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LACS TO THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE USE OF THE LAND AND SAME AMOU NT WOULD BE RETURNED ON HANDING OVER OF THE LAND TO THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, THAT I S, THE APPELLANT. ALL THE TAXES OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT WILL BE BORNE BY THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, THAT IS, THE APPELLANT. ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION BILL OF THE LAND WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WILL NOT CLAIM ANY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT GIVEN'FOR THE USE OF THE LAND, SIMILARLY THE APPELLANT WILL NOT CLAIM ANY RENTAL CHARGES FOR THE USE OF THE LAND IN ANY FUTURE DATE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADVANCE OF RS. 15 LAKH RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD IS NOT FOR ANY BENEFIT OF THE APPELLANT BUT PURELY A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER VERSUS RAJKUMAR 1 81 TAXMAN 155 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6.2 THE A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF I TAT IN THE CASE OF LAKRA BROTHERS (CHD) TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT IF THE AMOUNTS ARE P AID BY THE COMPANY TO THE DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE DIRECTOR HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT THERE FROM, SUCH AMOUNTS DO NOT FORM PART OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE FINDING OF THE ITAT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:-.. 6.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LACS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE COMPANY JOHN OIL AND GAS LTD TO THE APPELLANT AS AN ADVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING THE LAND OF THE APPELLANT AS ITS GODOWN/OPEN STOCKYARD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND THE DECISION OF I TAT CHANDIGARH AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RUPEES 15 LACS CANNOT BE TR EATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE AND AS SESSEE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) WERE MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE NOT MADE BEFORE AO. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A), CIT(A) WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY REMAND REPORT OR REPORT FROM A.O CONS IDERED THE SUBMISSIONS IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 5 OF ASSESSEE AND RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE MATTER BE REMIT TED TO THE FILE OF AO SO THAT THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE CIT(A) CAN BE EXAMINED BY HIM. LD A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID D .R. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION U/S 2(2 2)(E). WE FIND THAT AO IN HIS ORDER HAS NOTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HIM WAS WITH RESPECT TO DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND BY THE COMPANY IN EARLIER Y EARS, MAKING OF ADVANCE FOR THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND CHAR GING OF INTEREST BY THE COMPANY ON THE MONEY ADVANCED TO ASSESSEE. ON THE O THER HAND FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT BEFORE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT TO RS. 6 LACS, THAT IT WAS MERELY A JOURNAL ENTRY BY W HICH THE ADVANCE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE. WITH RESPECT TO RS. 15 LAC S, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE BY THE COMPANY FOR THE USE OF LAND WHICH WAS OWNED BY ASSESSEE AND WAS THEREFORE FOR THE BUSINES S PURPOSE. WE ALSO FIND THAT BASED ON THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY A.O WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT ON THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A), NO REMAND REPORT OR COMM ENTS FROM THE AO WAS OBTAINED BY CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE AO SHOULD BE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EX AMINE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A). WE THEREFORE RE MIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT(A) AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY INTEND TO RELY UPON. AO SHALL THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY FURNISH ALL THE DET AILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 6 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A 52/AHD/2011: (FOR A.Y. 2003-04) (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 11. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 19.10.2010 FOR A.Y . 2003-04 BY CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LAKHS MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, U NLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT T HE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153A BY AO WAS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.6 LAKHS WAS AN ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT WHICH AT TRACTED SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE ACT. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) WERE ATTRACTED TO THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 3.3 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING AO TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.6 LAKHS, THOUGH IT WAS MERELY A JOURNAL ENTRY. 12. SINCE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS INTERCONNECTED WITH THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN IT(SS)A NO 848/AHD/2010 HEREINABOVE AND SINCE THE GROUND RAISE D BY REVENUE HAS BEEN REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO, WE FOR SIMILAR REA SONS ALSO REMIT THE PRESENT GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF AO. THUS THESE G ROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . IT(SS)A 53/AHD/2011: (FOR A.Y. 2006-07) (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 14. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R:- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 19.10.2010 FOR A.Y . 2003-04 BY CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKHS MADE BY ASSE SSING OFFICER AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY ILLEG AL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153A BY AO WAS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 7 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.30 LAKHS WAS AN ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT WHICH ATTRACTED SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE ACT. 3.3 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) WERE ATTRACTED TO THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 15. SINCE GROUND NO 1 & 3 ITS SUBGROUNDS ARE IDENTI CAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO 848/AHD/2010 HEREINABOVE AND SINCE THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE HAS BEEN REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO, FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE PRESENT GROUND OF ASSESSEE ARE ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO. THUS THESE GROUND OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 16. SINCE THE MAIN GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS REMITTED T O THE FILE OF AO, ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECI DE IT AFRESH AS PER LAW. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A 54/AHD/2011: (FOR A.Y. 2007-08) (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 18. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R:- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 19.10.2010 FOR A.Y . 2003-04 BY CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKHS MADE BY ASSE SSING OFFICER AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, U NLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT T HE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153A BY AO WAS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH WAS AN ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT WHICH ATT RACTED SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE ACT. 3.4 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) WERE ATTRACTED TO THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 19. SINCE GROUND NO 1 AND 3 AND THEIR SUBGROUNDS AR E IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO 848/AHD/2010 HEREIN ABOVE AND SINCE THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE HAS BEEN REMITTED TO THE F ILE OF AO, FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE PRESENT GROUND OF ASSESSEE ARE ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO. THUS THESE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A N O 848/A/2010 & 52,53 & 54/A/10 . A.Y. 2003-04, 2006 -07 & 2007- 08 8 20. SINCE THE MAIN GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS REMITTED T O THE FILE OF AO, ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECI DE IT AFRESH AS PER LAW. 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF REVENUE AS WEL L AS ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02 - 05 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD