9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No.-5907/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2018 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Raj Kumar, CA For The Respondent : Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. Dr ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 7.9.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-37, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds: - 1. That the show cause notice issued u/s. 271(1) are fatally defective, more so, do not specify as to whether issued for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thus illegal and unsustainable, making the impugned penalty or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) held that the true test is whether the payment by Company was for the benefit of the assessee who was Managing Director. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd., (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del.) held that business transactions did not attract provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act . The Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal.) held that shareholder permitted to mortgage its property for Company and received loan, therefore, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act would not be attracted . PB-22 is rent agreement between assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnel. Copy of the Agreement to Sell is filed on record, which is not disputed by the authorities below. It appears that while referring to the tenanted property, A.O. has taken the same property in the assessment order and under misconception of facts made the addition on account of deemed dividend. In fact, it is an Agreement to Sell of property bearing 31, Shankar Vihar, Delhi-92, which Ld. CIT(A) has corrected. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee is not in business of lending money. Therefore, the contention of assessee that it was a genuine business transaction is not acceptable. However, it is not the case of the assessee because assessee claimed that the Company agreed to purchase the property from the assessee on certain terms and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the above additions. Appeal of Assessee is partly allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed. 6.1 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the additions on which the penalty in dispute was levied, has already been deleted by the ITAT, except the addition of ₹ 13,634/- which was not pressed by the assessee in quantum appeal, vide order dated 19.6.2018 in ITA No. 4126/Del/2014 (AY 2011-12) in assessee s own case as aforesaid, hence, the penalty in dispute will not survive on the additions in dispute, except the penalty on the addition of ₹ 13,634/- which was not pressed by the assessee in quantum appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
