Tca/167/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S Accel Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.167 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- M/s.Accel Ltd., No.75, Nelson Manickam Road,Chennai-600 029. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai Bench 'C', Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1825/Mds/2008,dated 11.09.2009, for the assessment year 2004-05, against theorder of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I dated 28/02/2008made in ITA 603/06-07 against the Assessment order of AssistantCommissioner of Income-Tax, Company Circle I(1) Chennai forPAN/GIR No.Ax6-061/AAACA3042P For Appellant:Mrs.R.Hemalatha,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent:Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the Revenue filed under Section 260A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),is directed against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai Bench 'C', Chennai (Tribunal), inI.T.A.No.1825/Mds/2008, dated 11.09.2009, for the assessmentyear 2004-05. 2.The above appeal was admitted, on 06.06.2011, on thefollowing substantial question of law:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in confirming thedeletionoftheentireadditionofRs.4,16,12,082/- made by the Assessing Officertreating the said amount as deemed dividend underSection 2(22)(e) and that too by not considering aground of appeal raised by the Revenue in theappeal?” 3.Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant/Revenue; and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counselfor the respondent/assessee. 4.The first aspect to be considered is whether anysubstantial question of law arises for consideration in thisappeal. Upon going through the order passed by the Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai (for brevity “the CIT(A)”),dated 28.05.2008, as well as the impugned order passed by theTribunal, we find that the entire dispute is purely factual. 5.The question is whether the amount of Rs.4,16,12,082/-is to be construed as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e)of the Act. We find that this issue was threadbare analysed bythe CIT(A) in his order dated 28.05.2008, after calling for aremand report. This finding recorded by the CIT(A) was correct,as there is no payment made by the assessee-company to itssubsidiary during the previous year, relevant to the assessmentyear 2004-05 within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6.Thus, we find that the first appellate authority aswell as the Tribunal has considered the factual position andgranted relief to the assessee. Thus, we find there is nosubstantial question of law arising for consideration.Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Nocosts. Assistant Registrar(CS-III) abr To https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Chennai 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax Company Circle 1(i), Chennai Company Circle 1(i), Chennai +1cc to Mr.R.Hemalatha, Advocate SR.No.4819 +1cc to Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate SR.No.4993 T.C.(A) No.167 of 2011 PP(CO)GMY(23/03/2019)