9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 433 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Additions on protective basis - The appeal in the case of other assessee is pending before the Apex court - HELD THAT - With regard to the addition of ₹ 3 Crores confirmed by the Hon ble ITAT, Chennai M/S. SUBHAVARSHA INFOTECH 2018 (12) TMI 522 - ITAT CHENNAI in the hands of the firm, the firm has not accepted the ITAT s decision and has contested in appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Madras which is pending now . In such facts and circumstances, the Ld CIT(A) s decision since the issue under consideration has not reached finality in the apex court, of the considered opinion that as of now, in view of the Hon ble ITAT Chennai s decision of the confirmation of addition of ₹ 4.54 Crores, the addition in the hands of the appellants - Mr.S.Sundaramoorthy and Mr.T.Padmakumaron a protective basis by the A O clearly amounts to a double addition and therefore, is unfair and unreasonable, which deserves to be deleted. does not require any interference and hence the Revenue s above appeals are dismissed. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the firm and partners. 2. Protective assessment of deemed dividend in the hands of partners. 3. Acceptance of ITAT's decision by the firm regarding the addition of deemed dividend. 4. Contesting the addition of deemed dividend in the High Court. Issue 1: Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the firm and partners: The case involved a transfer of funds from one entity to another, leading to the question of whether it constituted deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The Assessing Officer added the entire transferred amount in the hands of the recipient firm. The CIT(A) deleted a portion of the addition, which was further contested in appeals. The ITAT Chennai upheld the addition in the firm's hands. The firm partially accepted the decision but appealed against a specific portion. The CIT(A) considered the firm's appeal and concluded that further addition in the partners' hands would amount to double addition and hence deleted the addition in the partners' hands. Issue 2: Protective assessment of deemed dividend in the hands of partners: The Assessing Officer made a protective assessment in the hands of the partners, relying on relevant case law. The partners contested this assessment, arguing that the addition in their hands would result in double taxation. The CIT(A) considered this argument and deleted the addition in the partners' hands, as the issue was still pending before higher courts. Issue 3: Acceptance of ITAT's decision by the firm regarding the addition of deemed dividend: The firm accepted ITAT's decision regarding a portion of the deemed dividend but appealed against another portion. The CIT(A) considered the firm's appeal and concluded that adding the same amount in the partners' hands would be unfair and unreasonable, leading to a double addition. Therefore, the addition in the partners' hands was deleted. Issue 4: Contesting the addition of deemed dividend in the High Court: The firm contested the addition of deemed dividend in the High Court, specifically challenging the addition related to a transfer to a third party. The CIT(A) considered this aspect and noted that since the issue had not reached finality in the apex court, the addition in the partners' hands was unjustified and should be deleted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on these considerations. This judgment highlights the complexities surrounding deemed dividend additions and protective assessments, emphasizing the need for consistency and fairness in tax assessments. The decisions made by the ITAT and CIT(A) were based on legal interpretations and the potential for double taxation, ensuring that the tax liabilities were justly determined.
|
