9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d together with the appeal of the present respondent. 2. We are concerned with the appeal of the present respondent assessee essentially. Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal for the revenue submits that the Tribunal's order and specially its conclusion with regard to applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raises substantial questions of law. He submits that the Tribunal was impressed by the circuitous entries in which the money was advanced by a company namely M/s. Swati Energy & Projects Pvt. Ltd. That is a company admittedly in which the assessee has substantial interest. Equally, the assessee has substantial interest in M/s. Sujyoti Enterprises. The money may have flown from the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2010) 324 ITR 263 and another in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2014) 360 ITR 544. For all these reasons, it is submitted by him that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law but deserves to be dismissed. 5. The statement of facts in the present memo of appeal, are essentially those recorded by the Tribunal in para-2 of the impugned order. Mr. Ahuja does not dispute that the assessee is an individual. He is a Director in M/s. Swati Energy and Projects Pvt. Ltd. as well as a partner in M/s. Sujyoti Enterprises. He has substantial interest in both concerns. According to Mr. Ahuja, Mr. Manish Dedhia is an employee of M/s. Swati Energy and Projects Pvt. Ltd. He i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concern in which such shareholders is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said concern)] or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits; but "dividend" does not include - (i) a distribution made in accordance with sub-clause(c) or sub-clause(d) in respect of any share issued for full cash consideration, where the holder of the share is not entitled in the event of liquidation to participate in the surplus assets; [(ia) a distribution made in accordance with sub-clause(c) or subclause (d) in so far as such distribution is attributabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is transaction and holds that there is no flow of fund or any benefit from M/s. Swati Energy and Projects Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Sujyoti Enterprises or to its partner Mr. Pravin B. Chheda. Mr. Pravin Bhimshi Chheda is the respondent assessee before us. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal concluded that this is not a loan or advance so as to attract section 2(22)(e). We are not required to go into any further controversy or larger question. The Tribunal may have addressed itself to the status of Mr. Manish Dedhia and the financial position of M/s. Power Service Corporation possibly to take care of the argument of the revenue that these were entities closely connected and possibly the money was routed through them although there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Tea Estate a debit balance was shown in the books of the company as on 12th November, 1956. On 29th December, 1956, the assessee paid back to the company a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. On 31st December, 1956, the assessee's account was credited with another sum of Rs. 80,000/- in respect of the dividend due to him and his wife, and with a further sum of Rs. 29,326/- for hypothecation. That is how before the end of the previous year, the credits obtained in the account of the assessee. At the end of the relevant previous year, no advance or loan was given by the company to the assessee. However, the Income Tax Officer found that the accumulated profits of the company as on 1st January, 1956, amounted to Rs. 6,83,005/-. Therefore, the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lending and the amount could be paid in advance in the ordinary course of his business, that the requirement of section 2(22)(e) which is similarly worded in the 1922 Act is not satisfied. The conditions are not met. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected this argument and equally the other argument that the loan or advance must be outstanding at the end of the previous year. True, it is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it need not be shown as outstanding but the fact remains that essential conditions have to be satisfied for the applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our case, the Tribunal, as a matter of fact, found that the circuitous transaction does not fall within the subsection concerned. Equall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
