TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-11 on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 30,20,136/-. The case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which was issued on 09.07.2013 and duly served on the assessee on 26.07.2013. Thereafter the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,32,58,278/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.22.02.2017 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/DCIT Cir-4/PN/22/2015-16) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losely held company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The addition made by the A. O. on this count and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. It be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate properly the facts of the case for coming to the conclusion that the deemed dividend of Rs. 1,02,38,142/- u/s 2(22)( e) is taxable in the hands of the assessee. The law has no sanction to it. The addition be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appeal is delayed by few days. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The balance of convenience is in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - a. Commercial expediency in making the advances. b. Actual transactions during the A.Y. 2010-11. C. Insufficiency of profit." 4. With respect to additional grounds, it is assessee's submission that the additional grounds being legal grounds and since it goes to the root of the issue involved in the appeal, the same be admitted. With regard to raising an additional ground and the admissibility, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co., Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders reported as 349 ITR 336. Ld.D.R. did not seriously object ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of the objections of the assessee on the re-opening. He submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) has held that AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time and on receipt of reasons the assessee is entitled to file the objections to the issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. He therefore submitted that in the present case, AO has not disposed of the objections raised by the assessee. He therefore relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of KSS Petron Private Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA No.224 of 2014 and M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. in WP No.2502 of 2015 order dated 27.01.2016 su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. Furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment is mandatory condition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that recorded reasons must be furnished to the assessee when the assessee sought for the reasons. 12. We also find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (supra) had held that the reassessment order to be non sustainab....