COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revenue has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") by challenging order dated 21.5.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "ITAT") in I.T.A. No. 105/CHANDI/2012 in respect of assessment year 2008 -09. The revenue has, in the appeal, raised the following substantial questions of law: - -

(2.) IN order to ascertain the veracity/genuineness of the revised returns, the Assessing Officer downloaded the annual returns from the website of Registrar of Companies and found that the assessee had owed 14000 shares out of 36000 which amounted to a share holding of 38.8%. The Assessing Officer on browsing through the website of the Registrar of Companies found that the Company had allegedly filed a revised return on 22.2.2010, whereby the share holding pattern of the assessee was changed from 38.8% to 8.8% and the shares were transferred to none else but to his wife and son. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer opined that it was a loan received by the assessee from the Company and, therefore, it was termed to be deemed income as envisaged under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 3.9.2010 sought directions to be issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax, Circle -I, Ludhiana under Section 144A of the Act and on the basis of the said application, the Assessing Officer was also asked to furnish report on the contention in the application. However, for the sake of brevity, the contentions raised in the application under Section 144A of the Act are reproduced herein below: - -

(3.) THE Assessing Officer submitted report dated 21.10.2010 on the said application of the assessee. After pondering such report, it was allegedly found that the returns furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings were actually revised returns and the returns were filed after 18.9.2009 when the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee and the assessee did not disclose before the Assessing Officer that the annual returns filed by the Company were revised ones and, therefore, as per the report it was prima -facie opined that the returns were revised in February, 2010 and not on 30.3.2010 as alleged by the assessee.