Case Number: ITA 894/DEL/2021
Appellant: Moin Akhtar Qureshi, New Delhi
Respondent: Pr.CIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Case Filed On: July 22, 2021
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: April 20, 2023
Pronounced On: April 20, 2023
Moin Akhtar Qureshi, the appellant, challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the application of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with deemed dividends. The Pr.CIT alleged that Qureshi, holding 12% voting power in AMQ Agro India Private Limited, received amounts that should be classified as deemed dividends.
The main issues in this case were:
The case involved four assessment years (2008-09 to 2011-12) and was consolidated for convenience. The appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common order.
During the hearings, Qureshi’s counsel argued that no incriminating material was found during the search that suggested the applicability of section 2(22)(e). They contended that the transactions were business transactions and should not be treated as loans within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). They further argued that the Pr.CIT’s assumption of jurisdiction was invalid as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, supported the Pr.CIT’s decision and argued that the transactions were indeed loans and should be taxed as deemed dividends.
After considering the submissions, the tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed after a thorough examination of the seized documents, and no incriminating material was found that indicated the applicability of section 2(22)(e). The tribunal referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which stated that in the absence of incriminating material, the assessment under section 153A cannot include new issues.
The tribunal further noted that the Pr.CIT’s reliance on certain judicial decisions was not applicable in this case, as multiple views were possible on the same set of facts. Since the AO followed one plausible view and the Pr.CIT had a different view, the tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was unwarranted.
The tribunal set aside the order of the Pr.CIT and restored the assessment order passed by the AO. The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by Moin Akhtar Qureshi, concluding that the transactions were not loans within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) and that the Pr.CIT’s assumption of jurisdiction was invalid.
Order pronounced in the open court on April 20, 2023.
Members:
Sh. N. K. BILLAIYA, Accountant Member
Sh. ANUBHAV SHARMA, Judicial Member
The case revolves around the application of section 263 and the interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Section 263 allows the Pr.CIT to revise an order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. However, in this case, the tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
Section 2(22)(e) defines deemed dividends and is intended to prevent tax avoidance through the distribution of accumulated profits as loans or advances. The Pr.CIT argued that the transactions between Qureshi and AMQ Agro India Private Limited were such deemed dividends. However, the tribunal held that these transactions were business transactions and not loans within the meaning of section 2(22)(e).
This case highlights the complexities involved in interpreting tax laws and the importance of examining the facts and circumstances of each case. It also underscores the significance of judicial precedents in guiding tax authorities and taxpayers in understanding and applying the law.
The tribunal’s decision in this case sets a precedent for similar cases involving the application of section 263 and section 2(22)(e). It emphasizes that for an order to be revised under section 263, it must be demonstrably erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Additionally, it clarifies that not all financial transactions can be classified as deemed dividends under section 2(22)(e); the nature of the transactions must be carefully analyzed.
Taxpayers and tax authorities can refer to this case to understand the nuances of deemed dividends and the conditions under which section 263 can be invoked. It also serves as a reminder that multiple views on the same set of facts can exist, and the chosen view must be justifiable and within the bounds of the law.
The case of Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs. Pr.CIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi, provides valuable insights into the application of sections 263 and 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal’s decision to set aside the Pr.CIT’s order and restore the AO’s assessment underscores the importance of a detailed and fact-based examination of each case. It also highlights the need for tax authorities to carefully consider judicial precedents and the specific circumstances of each taxpayer when making decisions.
This case will likely influence future tax assessments and disputes involving similar issues, ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice are upheld in the application of tax laws.
Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs. Pr.CIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi – ITA 894/DEL/2021
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform