TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... money either from Nitesh Estates Ltd. nor from Nitesh Infrastructure (P) Ltd to come with in the purview of deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) - 6 failed to appreciate that there can be no further deeming provision to assess U/s 2(22)(e) in the hand of the share holder for the money received by one Company from another Company. 5. The CIT(A) - 6 erred in not following the jurisdictional high court decision without distinguishing on merit but simply held as not applicable to the appellants case. 6. The CIT(A) - 6 failed to appreciate that even in the case of the M/s NIPL the recipient of the money based on which the assessment was reopened the H'ble Tribunal based on the same jurisdictional high court relied on the appellant had held that the addition U/s 2(22)(e) was deleted and confirmed by the H'ble jurisdictional High Court. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal my be allowed and justice rendered, the appellant may be awarded cost in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institu n fees as part of the cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoking section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. Perusal of assessment order reveals that appellant is a major share holder in Nitesh Estates Pvt Ltd NEPL in short which has a substantial interest in Nitesh Infrastructure Pvt Ltd NIPL in short. It was noted by AO that NEPL had advanced a sum of Rs. 11800000/- during FY 2006- 07 to NIPL. It was noted that Rs. 73 Iakh was repaid during FY 2006-07 & balance of Rs. 45 lakh was shown as current liH NIPL. Further appellant did not take these transactions into consideration while filing his return of income. Therefore the case was re-opened u/s 148 since there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 10. It may be noted that appellant holds 54.5% & 98 % as equity shares in NEPL & NIPL respectively. It may further be noted that wef AY 1998 - 99, if any payment by way of advance or a loan is made by a closely held company to a shareholder who is a beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 1 % voting power or to any concern in which such a shareholder is a member or a partner in which he has a substantial interest then such advance, payment or loan will be treated as 'deemed dividend" u/s 2( 22) (e) of the Act in the h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case. 2. Without prejudice and not conceding that there was any instance of deemed dividend in the case of the appellant, the deemed dividend if any was to be restricted to the extent of the accumulated profits of Rs. 69,04,318/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds at the time of hearing the appeal. 4. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief may be granted in the interest of justice and equity." 8. Vide application dated 08/10/2019 assessee challenges proceedings under section 148 to be bad in law for the reason that notice issued under section 143(2) is beyond the period of limitation by raising following grounds: "1. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-initio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 148 did not exist on the facts and circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consequential reassessment order passed is bad in law. He submitted that notice u/s143(2) was issued to assessee on 11/03/2015. He placed reliance on page 19 of paper book, where notice under section 143(2) is placed. Ld.AR submitted that on 25/03/2014, assessee filed return in lieu of notice issued under section 147 of the Act, and time period to issue notice u/s.143(2) expires on 30/09/2014, being 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return is filed. 14. He thus prayed for quashing of the reassessment order as the same is passed without jurisdiction. Ld.AR placed reliance on decision of coordinate bench in case of this Tribunal in case of ACIT vs.Ashed Properties & Investments (P.) Ltd. reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 340 15. On the contrary, Ldr.Sr.DR submitted that this issue has been raised for the 1st time before this Tribunal, and therefore needs to be verified by authorities below. He submitted for the matter to be remanded to authorities below for verification. Ld. senior DR also submitted that the said error could be rectified under section 292 BB of the Act. 16. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed befo....