DCIT, New Delhi v. M/s A.R. Chadha & Co. India Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi

ITA 20/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2020114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACA1108L
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 20/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s A.R. Chadha & Co. India Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 06-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 29-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-04-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 04-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K .G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO.20/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 DY. C.I.T. VS. M/S AR CHADHA & CO. INDIA PVT. CENTRAL 1(1) LTD. OFF. NO.8 1 ST FLOOR ATMA RAM NEW DELHI MANSION (SCINDIA HOUSE) CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI PAN NO.AAACA1108L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMAN CHOPRA CA ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL: AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV NEW DELHI PASSED ON 20.10.2009 IN I.T. APPEAL NO.83/08-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP TWO SUBSTA NTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.17 13 614/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT M BLOCK CONNAUGHT PLACE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE 2 DEPARTMENT BY FURTHER CONTESTING THE SAME BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.9 15 556/- O N ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY FURTHER CONTESTING THE SAME BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 2. BEFORE US IT WAS THE COMMON CASE OF BOTH THE PA RTIES THAT THE GROUNDS STAND COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS.4037 & 4038/D/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 DATED 13.03.2009 . IN FACT A MENTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS REGARD IN THE GROUNDS THEMSELVES WHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THESE GROUNDS BEFORE THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.1 IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 9 WHICH I S REPRODUCED BELOW:- 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT I S NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: HERE IN THIS CASE THE FINDING WAS AGAINST THE REVENUE IN EARLIER YEARS AS PER ORDERS OF THE CIT(A ) 3 BUT THOSE ORDERS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BECAUSE APPEAL IS PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THESE GROUNDS. THEREFORE THE REVENUE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR CANNOT TAKE THE DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE MATTER. ON PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ADOPT THE SAME VIEW ON THE SAME MATTER IN ISSUE. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ADDITION WAS HIS FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WHICH HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE CIT(A) AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BECOME FINAL. THEREFORE NO BASIS IS LEFT WIT H THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ENHANCEMENT IN THE ALP ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CANNOT SUSTAIN UNDER LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED AND THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 THE ADDITION AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO . 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 STAND ALLOWED. 2.1 THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF GROU ND NO.2 IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAH NOS.5 & 6 WHICH ARE REPRODUC ED BELOW:- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT I S NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN THE 4 CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOURS PVT. LTD. WHEREIN THE SPEC IAL BENCH HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THE INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IS TO TAX DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER. THE DEEMING PROVISIONS AS IT APPLIES TO THE CASE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES BY A COMPANY TO A CONCERN IN WHICH ITS SHAREHOLDER HAS SUBSTANTIAL IS BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LOAN OR ADVANCE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY GIVING THE LOAN OR ADVANCE. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS THEREFORE TO TAX DIVIDEND ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER. 6.HERE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE SHAREHOLDER IN M/S ATMA RAM CONSTRUCTIONS. IT IS A LSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUBSTAN TIAL INTEREST IN M/S ATMA RAM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION OF THE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/ S ATMA RAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) STANDS DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY GRO UND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR STANDS ALLOWED. 2.2 AS A CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW ON THESE GROUNDS AND SUCH VIEW HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED B Y THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE THINK IT FIT TO FOLLOW THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISPOS ING OF THIS APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISS ED. 5 3. IN RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06.05 .2010. SD/- SD/- ( R.P. TOLANI ) ( K.G. BANS AL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DT.06.05.2010. NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(1) NEW DELHI 2. M/S A.R. CHADHA & CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A) NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).