TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961 the first appellate authority erred in further giving directions which were not the subject matter of the appeal. The assessee contends that the appellate authority should base its decision on proper and judicious appraisal of material available on record and should not view considerations of safeguarding interests of revenue in recording any findings or directions which are otherwise legally unsustainable. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company had raised loan of Rs. 124,05,816/- from its sister concern M/s Kimo Clothing Design Concept Pvt Ltd. having 99.99% stake in the assessee company. The share-holding pattern of M/s Kimo Clothing Design Concept Pvt Ltd. is as under: Shri Rajeev Sharma 51....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Late Mrs. IDA Margaretha Verrips H-35, Western Avenue IOC, V and PC) Neb Saras. Sanik farms, New Delhi-02 001490900000051 {Yes Rank, Sec 18, Notda) AFMPV9949Q ITO Ward 1(3) In view of the above, with these directions, the addition in the hands of the appellant company is directed to be deleted. However, such addition of deemed dividend shall be made in the hands of individual shareholders Mr, Rajeev Sharma and Ms. Ida Margaretha Verrips by the jurisdictional AOs. 'The ground of appeal is accordingly decided. 6. The bone of contention is the findings which read "However, such addition of deemed dividend shall be made in the hands of the share holders Shri Rajeev Sharma and Smt. Ida Mangartha by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the appellant company as shareholding of Mr Rajeev Sharma and Ms. Ida Margaretha Vernps and clubbed with their personal holding in the appellant company for making provisions of section 2(22)(e) applicable to the Appellant company without any basis 5 learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that to determine the shareholding of a person in a concern - even share held by him/her in two different capacities e g as individual and as HUf cannot be clubbed. 6 u/s 22(2)(e) the deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is a shareholder of tender company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder". 10. A perusal of the aforesaid grievance before the CIT(A) shows that the assessee was agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nul the assessment. Before 1.6.2001, there was one more power and the same reads as under: "Or he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making fresh assessment in accordance with the directions." 12. It can be safely concluded that the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act was strictly confined to the assessment order for a particular year under appeal. This is analogous to the jurisdiction of the AO which is also confined to the year of assessment. 13. As mentioned elsewhere, the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) was in respect of the appellant and was confined to the additions made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the appellant. Once the CIT(A) was convinced that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear was the unit of assessment. The decision of an Income-tax officer given in a particular year did not operate as res judicata in the matter of the subsequent years. The jurisdiction of the Tribunals in the hierarchy created by the Act was no higher than that of the Income-tax Officer it was also: confined to the year of assessment. (ii) That the jurisdiction "of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31 was strictly confined to the assessment order of the particular year under appeal. (iii) That the assessment or reassessment made in consequence of or to give effect to any. finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33A, section 33B, section 66 or section 66A must necessarily relate....