Commissioner of Income-tax-21 v. Sai Shiv Developers - 2015-LL-0127-50

Citation	2015-LL-0127-50
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-21
Respondent Name	Sai Shiv Developers
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	27/01/2015
Assessment Year	2005-06
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	substantial question of law • beneficial shareholder • period of limitation • reassessment order • deemed dividend
Bot Summary:	The Revenue has framed the following questions of law for our consideration: a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that for invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the shareholder must be both registered and beneficial shareholder and that the deemed dividend could not be taxed in the hands of a person other than the shareholder b) Whether the remedy of revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, was barred by the law of limitation 1 / 3 Uploaded on - 31/01/2015 Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 12:20:40 15.ITXA.210. So far as question is concerned with regard to the deemed dividend, we find that the impugned order has allowed the appeal of respondent assessee on the above issue by following the Special Bench decision in CIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 146. Accordingly the question as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law, hence dismissed. So far as question is concerned, namely limitation, the impugned order has merely followed the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. 343 ITR 74. In ICICI Bank Ltd., this Court has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in respect of an issue covered in assessment order passed in regular proceeding, but not covered in the reassessment order, but the period of limitation in respect of such an issue would commence from the order of assessment in regular assessment proceedings under Section 143 of the Act and not from the reassessment order passed under Section 143 r/w 147 of the Act. The Revenue has not been able to point any distinguishing feature in this case from the order passed by this 2 / 3 Uploaded on - 31/01/2015 Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 12:20:40 15.ITXA.210. 13.sxw Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Accordingly, question also does not raise any substantial question of law, hence dismissed.

15.ITXA.210.13.sxw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 21 Appellant Vs. M/s Sai Shiv Developers Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Subhash Shetty a/w Mr. D.C. Jain, Advocates for Respondent. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 27th JANUARY 2015 P.C.: 1. This appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges order dated 23rd May 2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') in respect of assessment year 2005 06. 2. Revenue has framed following questions of law for our consideration: a) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was right in law in holding that for invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Act, shareholder must be both registered and beneficial shareholder and that deemed dividend could not be taxed in hands of person other than shareholder? b) Whether remedy of revision u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, was barred by law of limitation? 1 / 3 Uploaded on - 31/01/2015 Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 12:20:40 15.ITXA.210.13.sxw 3. So far as question (a) is concerned with regard to deemed dividend, we find that impugned order has allowed appeal of respondent assessee on above issue by following Special Bench decision in CIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 146. This decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in Bhaumik Colour (supra) has been upheld by this Court in CIT Vs. Universal Medicare P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 263. We find that view of this Court in Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been again reiterated in CIT Vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346. Accordingly question (a) as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law, hence dismissed. 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, namely limitation, impugned order has merely followed decision of this Court in CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. 343 ITR 74. In ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra), this Court has held that Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of Act in respect of issue covered in assessment order passed in regular proceeding, but not covered in reassessment order, but period of limitation in respect of such issue would commence from order of assessment in regular assessment proceedings under Section 143 of Act and not from reassessment order passed under Section 143 r/w 147 of Act. Revenue has not been able to point any distinguishing feature in this case from order passed by this 2 / 3 Uploaded on - 31/01/2015 Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 12:20:40 15.ITXA.210.13.sxw Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, question (b) also does not raise any substantial question of law, hence dismissed. 5. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 3 / 3 Uploaded on - 31/01/2015 Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 12:20:40 Commissioner of Income-tax-21 v. Sai Shiv Developer

Metadata

Judgment