9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,96,196/- holding it as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Other grounds raised are repetitive in nature. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that in the original assessment, the ld. AO made the addition of all credit entries in the books of accounts amounting to Rs. 41,60,117/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal where additional evidence was filed and a remand report was called for. The ld. CIT(A), however, on estimated basis, retained the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Thus, impliedly the break-up of Rs. 15,00,000/- is as under:- i) Opening cash balance - Rs. 55,277/- ii) Small loans received - Rs. 1,07,174/- iii) Intra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective accounts; therefore, no addition u/s 69 is called for. 5. Apropos second ground, it is contended that the assessee was an employee director, having a running Current Account with the company M/s. Atiresh Trading Co. The assessee used to give advance amounts to company which was returned by company & vice versa as and when necessary. Thus, there was no element of loan or deposit in these transactions. They being purely need based current account transactions, there is no justification in deeming it to be deemed dividend and adding u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Schutz Dishman Bio-Tech (P) Ltd in Tax Appeal No. 958 & 959 of 2015, holding as under:- "Even oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as Tribunal concurrently held that looking to large number of adjustment entries in the accounts between two entities, the amounts were not in the nature of loan or deposit, but merely adjustments, application of section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. Consequently, no question of law arises. Tax appeals are dismissed." 6. Ld. DR, in reply, contends that the assessee's conduct from beginning has been evasive as no books of accounts were produced before the ld. AO and for the first time they were produced before the ld. CIT(A). The AO submitted his objections in the remand report called for in this behalf. Ld. CIT(A) was more than reasonable in admitting the additional evidence, calling for remand report and restricting the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge its onus; consequently, the additions in respect of the same are upheld, whereas the addition in respect of Intra-Bank Deposit is deleted. This ground of the assessee is partly allowed. 10. Apropos Ground No.2, the nature of transactions reflected from the assessee's account and company account demonstrates that it was a running current account and the transactions therein are not in the nature of loans and advances so as to be termed as deemed dividend. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Schutz Dishman Bio-Tech (P) Ltd (supra), the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) is deleted. 11. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7th October, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
