9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for the Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein Tribunal had remitted the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration for verifying as to whether the amount has finally moved or reached to the individual Assessee or not, the Tribunal has proceeded to record such a concession as having been made on behalf of the Assessee. No justification on the part of the learned Members of the Tribunal to record any such concession on behalf of the Assessees and make additions invoking the provision under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the individual Assessees viz., the shareholders of the two Companies. Unless the findings of facts are returned by the Assessing Authority on the basis of materials that the money was received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007:- i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not considering the ground that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to re-open the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction under Section 147 to reopen an assessment to make a protective reassessment? 2. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference:- 3. The brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Shri.V.Ramesh and ₹ 26,84,901/- in the case of Shri.S.Ramu. The learned Department's Representative could not controvert to the submission of the learned AR. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. We find merit in the contention of the learned AR. Adding the amount of ₹ 53,69,803/- in the hands of each of the assessees would amount to double taxation and that is not permissible. Moreover with respect to the transaction of extending loan by M/s.Chennai Micro Finance Ltd., to M/s.Tallboy Stationeries Pvt. Ltd., the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act attracts the amount of deemed dividend only to the extent of the loan amount which is further restricted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember 2018, it was clearly submitted before the learned Tribunal that an identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the Assessees' own case for the Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein Tribunal had remitted the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration by verifying as to whether the amount was finally moved to the Assessees or not. He further submitted that despite the said position, the learned Tribunal, recording the concession or pleading by the learned AR made on behalf of the Assessees converted the protective assessment made by the Assessing Authority into a substantive one and gave partial relief deciding the said addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of 50% in the hands of both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a concession for some addition to be upheld in the undisclosed income. The Tribunal, under the Act, is a final fact finding Body and not a Court of Record. It is vested with a responsible job of returning the correct and proper finding of facts based on relevant evidence and material. 8. We expressed our pain and anxiety against such observation of the learned Tribunal. In the present case also despite the fact that it was brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Authority by way of written submission on 9.4.2018 that an identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the Assessees' own case for the Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein Tribunal had remitted the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
