TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to cancel the order of CIT by holding that the order of the assessment was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue despite the fact that the assessing officer failed to include the reserves and surplus of M/s. M.K. Shah Exports Ltd. with that of M/s. Safari Capitals Pvt. Ltd. for quantification of deemed dividend income ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating the odder of amalgamation dated 5.7.2001 with retrospective effect from 18.5.1998 which has a direct bearing on the calculation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was stated that the assessing officer failed to include the reserve and surplus of M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. with that of Safari Capitals Pvt. Ltd. for the aforesaid quantification of deemed dividend income and owing to short computation of income under Section 2(22)(e), the block assessment order has been rendered erroneous and has resulted in under charge of tax thereby causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. With these facts a show cause notice was issued under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee in their reply/written submission stated that neither on 23.02.1999 nor on 04.03.1999 when the two demands in question were made by Safari Capitals Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee, there was no proposal or scheme of merger in contemplation of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as fully aware of the issue raised by the CIT in the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The assessing officer has taken a conscious decision after going through all the details and particulars filed before him in the original block assessment proceedings. He was also aware of the relevant provisions as well as the case law. Therefore, it was submitted that only because the CIT does not agree with the opinion of the assessing officer, it would not give the CIT jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment. Further, it was contended that the assessing office in the original block assessment has taken a plausible view and the facts which are relevant were set out. Apart from that, the assessee placed reliance on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lock assessment, was fully aware of the matter in dispute. The assessee had clarified before the assessing officer regarding the quantification of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and also set out the reasons for the same. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessing officer vide letter dated 19.03.2004 raised specific queries on this aspect in course of block assessment proceedings. The assessee had submitted an elaborate reply dated 25.03.2004 which was also noted by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal found that after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the assessing officer has completed the block assessment accepting the contention of the assessee. Further, the Tribunal called for the assessment records and f....