9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of section 292 BB of the act - It is clear from the provisions that section 292 BB of the act could only in select Ld.AO from the proof of service of notice. It does not in anyway insulate Ld.AO in a situation where the issuance itself is bad in law and beyond the period of limitation. Our view is supported by the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal [ 2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] . We therefore do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld.Sr.DR. Reassessment proceedings are invalid for the reason that notice under section 143(2) was not issued to assessee in the time period prescribed by the provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O also noted that a sum of ₹ 73 lakh was repaid during the year under consideration itself. And the balance amount of ₹ 45 lakh was shown as current liability by Nitesh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. It was observed by Ld.AO that, as assessee has substantial interest in both the companies, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act stands attracted and the said loan amount was liable to be assessed in the hands of assessee. Since assessee did not take into consideration the above transaction while filing his return of income, Ld.AO was of the opinion that there was reason to believe that income has escaped assessment within the provisions of section 148 of the Act. 3. In view of the above, notice under section 148 dated 12/03/2014 was issued and served on assessee. 4. In response to notice under section 148, representative of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. Ld.AO based on submissions made by assessee vide letter dated 08/08/2014, and documents filed in respect of M/s.Nitesh Estates Pvt.Ltd., and M/s.Nitesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., came to the conclusion that, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, is clearly attracted. Ld.AO was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out in, section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, that amount of loan would be liable to be regarded as deemed dividend within the meaning of this section" 12. It is evident that that appellant holds 54.5% & 98 % as equity shares in NEPL & NIPL respectively. These show that appellant is a major share holder in Nitesh Estates Pvt Ltd which has, a substantial interest in Nitesh Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. It is further noted that NEPL had advanced a sum of ₹ 11,800000/- during FY 2006-07 to NIPL. Therefore it is established that appellant is a major shareholder in a company which had advanced sums to another company wherein the said company has major stakes. Therefore the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the cited case of Sr. Rajeev Chandrashekar in ITA No 144/Bang/2013, AY 2008-09 and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 's.decision in the case of Sarva Equity Pvt Ltd in ITA No 322/212/01W ITA NOS 323/2012 & 324/2012 are not applicable. Reliance placed by AR of appellant in the cited judicial decisions is found to be untenable. In the light of these facts, AO's action of invoking provisions of section 2 (22(e) is found to be as per law. And hence the same is upheld, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the order of assessment on the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 8. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice." 9. Ld.AR submitted that, for adjudicating additional grounds no new facts needs to be looked into, as it emerges from orders passed by authorities below. He thus relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Gundathur Thimmappa & Sons vs CIT reported in 70 ITR 70, prayed for admission of the Additional Grounds raised before this Tribunal. 10. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR objecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced herein below as under: "Later on at p. 362, the Court held as under: There is no reason or logic why all the incidents attaching under the earlier legislations in so far as they are not clearly inconsistent with the later one, should not be extended to the later legislation as well." And concluded by saying as under: In the circumstances, I agree that we should give full and literal effect to the language of s. 3(3) and hold that it has the effect not only of attracting the procedural provisions of the 1944 Act but also all its other provisions including those containing the definition." 19. Admittedly, notice under 143(2) of the Act, issued on 11/03/2015 is in connection with the return filed pursuant to issuance of notice under section 148. On bare reading of provisions of section 143(2), it is clear that, time period for issuance of notice is, 6 months from end of the financial year in which the return was filed. 20. In the present facts of the case the time period reckons from 01/04/2014, since assessee intimated revenue vide letter dated 21/03/2014 filed with revenue on 25/3/2014 to consider the original return filed, in lieu of notice issued under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
