Itta/256/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Ravi Priya Estates

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH,HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.256 of 2013 DATE: 12.07.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad. … Appellant And Ravi Priya Estates, Hyderabad. … Respondent This court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.256 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred and sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the orderof the Tribunal is not perverse and liable tobe set aside? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theTribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.13,13,406/-made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act holding thatdeemed dividend could be assessed only in the hands of a personbeing shareholder of the lender company and not in the hand of anyother person other than shareholder?” The first ground in our view is a vague one and the appeal cannot beadmitted on that ground. Now we consider the second ground. From a reading of the impugnedorder, we noticed that the learned Tribunal had relied on its earlier decision int h e assessee’s own case in ITA.No.0684/CC-6/CIT(A)-I/09-10, dated27.09.2010, for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein an identical issue wasdealt with, and held that the assessee received the advance amount and didnot receive any dividend and such receipt of advance should not be treatedas deemed dividend, as the assessee was not the shareholder of the lendingcompany. There is no statement or averment that the facts and circumstances ofthe case under consideration are not similar to the earlier decision of the Tribunal, as quoted above. It is not the case of the revenue thatthe earlier judgment of the Tribunalin relation to assessment year 2007-08 was upset or challenged before any forum. In these circumstances, we dismissed the appeal. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________G. ROHINI, J Date: 12.07.2013ES