9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Department seeking rectification of order due to alleged non-consideration of a ground in the appeal. Analysis: The Department filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the order in I.T.A. No. 1825/Mds/2008, claiming that a ground raised by them was not considered by the Bench. They relied on legal precedents to argue that additional advances received by the assessee company from its subsidiary should be taxed in the year under consideration. The Department contended that the liability under section 2(22)(e) attaches as soon as the loan is given to the shareholder. The ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal were said to have overlooked the ground taken in the appeal. The Department argued that this constituted a mistake apparent from the record and requested rectification of the order. The ld. DR, representing the Department, merely reiterated the grounds raised in the application without providing further elaboration. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Department was seeking a review of the order, which is impermissible. They argued that the issues raised were argumentative and subject to divergent views, requiring examination of additional records. The assessee's counsel asserted that the appellate order had attained finality and that the Department could not seek further orders based on the facts alleged in the Miscellaneous Application. They maintained that there was no non-consideration of any issue raised in the appeal from the Department's side, thus warranting dismissal of the application. After hearing both sides and considering the materials on record and relevant case law, the Tribunal found that the issue raised in the appeal had been duly considered in the order. The Tribunal highlighted the AO's addition of a loan amount as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which was upheld in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the CIT(A) noted that the closing credit balance in the current account of the subsidiary did not constitute a payment by the assessee to its subsidiary, rendering the addition unsustainable for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that all aspects of the matter had been thoroughly examined, and no apparent mistake was identified. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's application, deeming it devoid of merit. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its original order, emphasizing that the issue raised by the Department had been adequately addressed and no valid grounds for rectification were found. The Miscellaneous Application of the Department seeking rectification was thus dismissed, affirming the finality of the appellate order.
|
