9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepting without assigning any reason the assessee's submission that the assessee had received 20,000 shares transferred to his account from N.K. Credits & Holding Pvt. Ltd. on 30.08.2008, in spite of the fact that the Annual return submitted before MCA which, being a legal document and created by the company of which the assesse is the Managing director having his full administrative control, is a self sufficient and self evidencing document, reflects that the assesse had received 20,000 shares transferred to his account from N.K. Credits & Holding Pvt Ltd. on 30.04.2008 resulting in total shares to be 88,300 shares out of total of 7,06,600 issued shares, i.e. 12.05% as on 30.06.2008 on which the assesse had taken Rs. 1 crore. (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Rs. 69,46,102/-. The AO was of the view that to the extent GCP possessed accumulated profits, the loans and advances received by the assessee from GCP had to be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The AO was of the view that the provisions of Sec.22(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were attracted. The provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act, reads as follows: (e) Any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31-5-1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessee in GCP as found out by him from the website of MCA. 5. Before CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that it was only after the receipt of order of assessment that the assessee came to know that the AO had from the website of MCA scrutinised the annual return filed by GCP and obtained information that the assessee held 88,300 shares as on 30.04.2008. The assessee pointed out that as per the annual return by GCP in the MCA 20,000 shares is stated to have been transferred in the name of the assessee on 30.04.2008 and the shares are claimed to have been transferred from the company by N.K.Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. In favour of the Assessee. It is only on the basis of transfer of 20,000 shares as on 30.04.2008 percentage of the share ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the A.O. to the Assessee, GCP took immediate steps to rectify the same by submitting a Revised Annual Return on 05.09.2011 to the MCA along with a covering letter dt. 02.09.2011 explaining the facts already stated earlier, that the date of transfer of relevant shares was not 30.04.2008 but 30.08.2008 and as such GCP was filing a Revised Annual Return, rectifying the said mistake. A copy of the said covering letter dated 02.09.2011 of GCP was filed before CIT(A). The said Revised Annual Return had been submitted on 05.09.201. Copy of receipt dated 05.09.2011 of filing the said Revised Annual Return after paying fee of Rs. 5000/- was also filed before CIT(A). 5.3. It was reiterated by the Assessee that the issue had arisen because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly belonged to the company was returned to it on the very same day. 5.6. CIT(A) was of the view that the revised annual return filed by the assessee had to be taken note of and in the light of the said revised return the assessee cannot be said to be a person having substantial interest in GCP. He was also of the view that the legal transfer of shares took place on 30.08.2008 and the contention of the AO that the date of transfer has been manipulated by the assessee and GCP was without any basis. 5.7. The CIT(A) also found that Shri naveen maheshwari, who was the beneficial owner of the shares, had handed over the transfer form duly signed by the registered shareholder N.K.Credit Holding Pvt. Ltd together with the share certificate to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day. The Tribunal held that looking at the transactions from the objects of section 2(22)(e) of the Act it cannot be said that there was diversion of dividend in the form of loans or advances. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition made by AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the learned DR, who reiterated the stand of the AO as put forth before CIT(A) in the remand report. The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). He further brought to our notice that the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Pravin Bhimshi Chheda Shivsada (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Pravin Bhimshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
