9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the reasons were asked within the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the same before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, the reassessment proceedings are valid in law. Addition on account unsecured loans - Held that:- It is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the transactions in question are merely book entries and the allegation made against the assessee company is that the assessee had provided cash to M/s Nishant Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., without bringing any adverse material on record against the appellant, therefore addition made is illegal, against provisions of Income Tax Act, against facts & circumstances and is bad in law. iv. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by Assessing Officer of ₹ 27,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) on basis of conjectures & surmises. v. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in treating outstanding liability on account of construction bill of M/s Seth Kishan Chand & Association for ₹ 27,00,000/- as loan/advance and thereby treating the same as dividend provision of law and decided cases. vi. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition u/s 2(22)(e) particularly when the issue was not subject matter of notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings and as well as on the merits of additions. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up before us with the present appeal. 3. The learned Authorized Representative argued that the reasons recorded under Section 148 were furnished to the assessee after the lapse of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. He placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 in support of the above proposition. On the merits, it was argued on behalf of the assessee company that in respect of the unsecured loan of ₹ 4,00,000/- received from M/s Nishant Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s Performance Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is submitted that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the act are applicable. He placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. Firstly, we deal with the preliminary ground of appeal i.e. ground no. 2, challenging the jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Act. In our considered opinion, the submission of learned Authorized Representative is that the reassessment proceedings are invalid for the reason that the reasons recorded are supplied after the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Drive Shafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO, 259 ITR 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturing Co. (supra) is not at all applicable to the fact of the preset case. Hence, the reassessment proceedings are valid in law. 6. Now, we shall deal with the merits of the addition on account unsecured loans. Admittedly, the amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- was received, ₹ 2 lakhs each from M/s Nishant Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s Performance Trading & Investment by account payee cheques and the confirmation letters had been filed. But it does not mean that the Assessing Officer is prevented from probing the matter further based on the information filed by the assessee. It is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the transactions in question are merely book entries and the allegation made against the assessee company is that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y interested for construction of industrial building. In terms of this contract, the said concern M/s Seth Kishan Chand and Associates had raised a bill for sum of ₹ 27 lakhs on 15th March, 2003 for the work done. This is shown as payable in the books of the appellant for the relevant assessment year. This, according to the Assessing Officer, constituted a payment within the purview of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which was upheld by the learned CIT(A). As stated earlier, it only represents book entry no actual payment was involved. In which event, there cannot be a deemed dividend within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Savithiri Sam, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
