9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be ₹ 37,45,500/- and Qualish Car that of ₹ 3,98,496/-. The assessee's books nowhere treat the sums received as loans and advances to have been received from the aforesaid company. The company's report does not disclose any such loan or advance to the assessee. The authorities below nowhere observe anything about accumulated profits so as to invoke section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We reiterate that this section stipulates addition of a deemed income statute liable to be strictly interpreted. The case file indicates that the impugned sums are routine business transactions/salary payments made between the company and the assessee-appellant not coming within the purview of deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken possession thereof by paying him a refundable deposit sum of ₹ 12.50 lacs. The Assessing Officer observed in order dated 30/11/2010 that the assessee had withdrawn excess amount to the tune of ₹ 9,81,400/- from 01/04/2005 onwards. Accordingly, he treated the impugned sum of ₹ 11,24,237/- as deemed dividends and made the consequential addition. 3. The CIT(A) has upheld the Assessing Officer's action as under:- 4.2 1 have gone through the rectification order and the submissions of the appellant. The following pertinent observations are made on the issue: a) the assessee is one of the Director holding more than 10% of share holding of B. Patel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. b) Assessee has withdrawn excess amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received ₹ 249077. In the month of March, assessee has received ₹ 981400/-. Not only is the claim of the appellant is proved wrong from the accounts but also it is clearly an afterthought and a story when viewed from the angle of probabilities of human behavior and business practices. It is seen that the total value of these assets i.e. car and tractors rented out to the company is only ₹ 41,00,000/- on which the assessee is getting rent of ₹ 16.45 lacs p.a. which itself is very high. No one will give another 12.5 lacs rupees as advance in such a deal. The addition u/s.2(22)(e) made by the AO is therefore totally justified on- the facts of the case. The reliance placed by the appellant on the two judgments i.e. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been received from the aforesaid company. The company's report at page-16 does not disclose any such loan or advance to the assessee. The authorities below nowhere observe anything about accumulated profits so as to invoke section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We reiterate that this section stipulates addition of a deemed income statute liable to be strictly interpreted. The case file indicates that the impugned sums are routine business transactions/salary payments made between the company and the assessee-appellant not coming within the purview of deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee has filed a catena of case-laws. We quote (2014) 29 ITR 36 (Bang.Trib.) DCIT vs. Chariot International Pvt.Ltd. holding that routine comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
