9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee. There is nothing in the Income-tax Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of questions raised before the departmental authorities. All questions, whether of law or of facts, which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal. If for reasons recorded by the departmental authorities in respect of a contention raised by the assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground is justified, it would be open to the departmental authorities and the Tribunal, and indeed they would be under a duty, to grant that relief. The right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the plea raised by him - matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh as directed earlier. - ITA No. 3560/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2018 - Shri R. K. Panda, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Department by : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2017 of CIT(A)- 27, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Addition of ₹ 12,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. nor any common shareholder holds 10% or more in both companies. Thus amount received from it cannot be covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Shareholding of M/s Saga Realtors Pvt. Ltd. is submitted herewith. (iv) Assessee is neither a shareholders of M/s Zenith Township Pvt. Ltd. nor any common shareholder holds 10% or more in both companies. Thus amount received from it cannot be covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Shareholding of M/s Zenith Township Pvt. Ltd. is submitted herewith. (vi) Assessee is neither shareholders of M/s Max Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. nor any common shareholder holds 10% or more in both companies. Thus amount received from it cannot be covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Shareholding of M/s Max Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. is submitted herewith. (vii) M/s Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd. has no available reserve and surplus therefore amount received from it cannot be covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. (viii) Amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- received from M/s Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. is trade advance received in normal course of business and therefore fall outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A). He submitted that during the year under appeal the assessee had received the following amounts from Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. though cheques drawn on Jammu Kashmir Bank Ltd. :- 1. ₹ 10,00,000/- on 12.09.2011 vide Cheque no.181518. 2. ₹ 2,00,000/- on 05.01.2012 vide Cheque no.181536. 10. Referring to the bank statement, he submitted that it is clear from the bank statement that before making payment of ₹ 10,00,000/- on 12.09.2011, Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. had received ₹ 10,00,000/- from M/s Zenith Township Pvt. Ltd. and out of this amount as received from Zenith Township Pvt. Ltd., Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. paid the amount to the assessee. He submitted that Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. was having balance of ₹ 9,025/- which was insufficient to make the payment of ₹ 10,00,000/-. He submitted that the amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- was paid by Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. out of the amount further received from Zenith Township Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 03.01.2012. 11. He accordingly submitted that the aforesaid two amounts were paid by Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. to the assessee not out of it s accumulated profits but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reserves Surplus 1,52,38,655 1,54,04,600 Current Liabilities 43,34,04,326 43,80,71,236 Investments Non-current Investments 12,16,62,350 12,16,62,350 Inventories 17,19,04,0474 17,18,72,374 Short-term loans and advances 3,68,48,172 4,00,63,172 Other Current Assets 11,82,18,105 11,82,61,905 44,86,32,701 45,18,59,801 15. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the preceding year itself i.e. assessment year 2011-12, the investment in inventories and various assets were more than the reserves and surplus and accordingly such reserves and surplus were not physically available with Saamag Infrastrucutre Ltd.. He submitted that the accumulated profits of Saamag Infrastrucutre Ltd. were reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the details of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that accumulated profits, which was available with the assessee company was already exhausted and the advance of ₹ 12,00,000/- given by Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. was out of loan from Zenith Township Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to the assessee company. It is the submission of the ld. DR, no such argument was advanced by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee is making new plea before the Tribunal. A perusal of the material available on record shows that the assessee is challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The assessee before the Assessing Officer had made a submission that the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- received from Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. as advance was in the normal course of business. Now, it is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- was received from Saamag Infrastructure Ltd. which, in turn, had recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
