2018 (10) TMI 57 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - proceedings initiated by holding that Assessing Officer has not verified applicability of section 2 (22) (e) - deemed dividend addition - Held that - Amount received by assessee from M/s AMQ Agro India Pvt. Ltd. does not amount to loans and advances and Provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied. In our considered opinion, the order passed by Ld.AO cannot be treated as erroneous. It is a settled law that S.263 proceedings can be upheld, if twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous, as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, stands satisfied. In the present facts of the case assessee received share application money during the year under consideration and shares have been allotted during A.Y. 2014-15 to M/s AMQ Agro, therefore, in our considered opinion as Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable to this transaction, the order passed by Ld.AO cannot be treated as erroneous, and therefore, order passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of section 2(22)(e) regarding the amount received by the appellant company from another entity.
3. Consideration of submissions filed before the Pr. Commissioner in proceedings under section 263.
4. Grounds for appeal and the opportunity to add, alter, or modify them.

Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Order:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the order was bad in law and lacked jurisdiction. The grounds for appeal included challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner.

Applicability of Section 2(22)(e):
The key issue revolved around the applicability of section 2(22)(e) concerning the amount of ?2,50,00,000 received by the appellant company from another entity. The Pr. Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the provisions of section 2(22)(e) while determining the income of the assessee. The order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to the failure to address the applicability of this section.

Consideration of Submissions:
The appellant submitted that the amount received was towards share application money and not as loans and advances. The appellant argued that the assessment order was not erroneous considering the nature of the transaction and the subsequent conversion of share application money into share capital. However, the Pr. Commissioner found that the assessment order lacked proper examination and verification, particularly regarding the applicability of section 2(22)(e).

Grounds for Appeal:
The appellant sought leave to add, alter, or modify any grounds during the hearing. The appeal challenged the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, aiming to address the issues related to the assessment order's alleged errors and jurisdictional concerns.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed multiple issues, including jurisdictional challenges, the interpretation of section 2(22)(e) regarding funds received by the appellant, the consideration of submissions during proceedings, and the grounds for appeal. The decision ultimately quashed the order passed under section 263, ruling in favor of the appellant.