9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance in the hands of the assessee from the company - It was only refund of share application money received by the company from assessee’s husband Sh. Injderjeet Khanna, which was refunded in the joint name of the assessee and her husband – thus, the order u/s 263 is not sustainable – Decided in favour of Assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Held that:- As the addition had already been set aside - as such there is no basis which remains for the purpose of the penalty – thus, the order of the CIT(A) levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 2078/DEL/2011 & 3268/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2014 - Shri R. P. Tolani And Shri Shamim Yahya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. V. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allotted. The payment of Rs. 12 lacs which was received by the company by selling the popular plants held by it was in fact the refund the share application money to Sh. Inderjeet Khanna, husband of the assessee. It was further submitted that FDR made for Rs. 12 lacs pursuant to the said withdrawal was made in the joint names of Sh. Inderjeet Khanna and Smt. Neelam Khanna for a period of three months. However, Ld. CIT was not convinced. He directed that a sum of Rs. 10,90,965/- be added u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act in the hands of the assessee. 5. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that on this v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Ld. CIT. 8. Upon careful consideration, we find that section 263(1) of the I.T. Act postulates that the Commissioner may call for an examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order hereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 9. Now in this case, we find that Ld. CIT in his order has noted that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order on the impugned issue. He has discussed the same and he is correct in holding that any addition in this case is called for as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA NO. 3268/DEL/2012 12. In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved regarding the penalty imposed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the assessee of Rs. 3,50,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 13. In this case pursuant to the order u/s. 263 as discussed above on account of addition of Rs. 10,90,965/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Ld. CIT(A) has also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,43,752/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
