Bombay High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-35 vs Atul Kumar Mittal on 18 February, 2019
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha
itxa-1670-1677-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1670 OF 2016
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1677 OF 2016
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-35 .. Appellant.
v/s.
Shri Atul Kumar Mittal .. Respondent.
Mr. Ashok Kotangle with Mr. A. K. Saxena with Mr. Prabhakar Ranshur,
for the Appellant in both the Appeals.
Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ved Jain and Mr. Manish Kanth
i/b. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Sumi Soman, for the Respondent in both the
Appeals.
CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2019.
P.C:-
The Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal impugned in these appeals, is one passed by the Delhi bench of the Tribunal. However, we are informed that, assessment of the Respondent- Assessee have now been transferred within the Bombay jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not raise any dispute with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining these Appeals of the Revenue.
2 These Appeals arise from common back-ground and involve the same Assessee. We may notice facts from Income Tax Appeal No.1677 of 2016.
S.R.JOSHI ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 23:48:37 ::: itxa-1670-1677-2016.odt 3 Respondent-Assessee is an individual. In relation to the return of income filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer taxed a sum of Rs.4.07 Crores (rounded of) by way of deemed dividend under Section 2 (22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
4 The Assessee carried the issue in appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [in short "the CIT(A)] allowed the appeal, upon which, the issue at the hands of the Revenue, reached the Tribunal. After one round or remand, the Tribunal held that, Assessing Officer was not correct in invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in case of the present facts. In this context, Counsel for the Revenue pressed the following question before us at the time of oral submission:-
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal had erred in holding that the amount of Rs.4,07,30,000/- which was paid to the assessee by M/s. A. K. Services Pvt. Ltd. was in fact refund/ repayment of the advance/ deposit given by the assessee to the company?"
5 On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents on record, we gather that, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted the Assessee's contention that, the amount in question did not represent a loan or advance given to the Assessee by the Company but the same was merely in the nature of repayment of the past loan by the Assesssee to the Company. The CIT(A) in the first as well as in subsequent order after remand, has referred to the documents on record at considerable length and come to the factual finding that, upon the perusal of the accounts between the Assessee and the Company, what can be gathered is that, the sum of Rs.4.07 Crores was repayment of the loan S.R.JOSHI ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 23:48:37 ::: itxa-1670-1677-2016.odt by the Company. Tribunal confirmed these findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
6 The entire issue is thus based on appreciation of facts on record. Therefore, no question of law arises.
7 We notice that in Income Tax Appeal in Income Tax Appeal No.1670 of 2016, the Revenue had raised an additional question why the addition of Rs. 21.20 Crores under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, should not have been deleted. However, in view of discussion noted above, it is not necessary for us discuss separately this question which on facts is similar to question already rejected.
8 In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 23:48:37 :::