9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced against the property in question. The other co-owner have never entered into any Agreement to Sell with the company. There was a difference in the property number also as noted by the CIT(Appeals). CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that assessee's contention is after-thought and the entire transaction relate to sham transaction. The factual discrepancies have not been explained during the course of arguments before us as well. CIT(Appeals) was, therefore, justified in deciding the issue against the assessee. No merit in the appeal of the assessee on these grounds. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed. Addition of mobile expenses, car depreciation for personal purposes - AO without pointing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther findings and is rejected. 4. On ground Nos. 2 and 3, assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 18,22,923/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22) (e) of the Income Tax Act. The brief facts are that the Assessing Officer noted that the appellant Shri Kewal Krishan Chhabra had a debit balance of ₹ 18,22,923/- in the books of M/s Chhabra Wines Ltd. The AO further noted that Shri Kewal Krishan Chhabra was a Director of M/s Chhabra Wines Ltd. and held 51.98% shares of M/s Chhabra Wines Ltd. The Assessing Officer accordingly asked the appellant to explain why provisions of Section 2(22) (e) of the Income Tax Act may not be invoked. The appellant vide its letter dated 10.12.2010, submitted that payment of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account. The company had given advance to the assessee for purchase of the property but the property is not yet transferred by the assessee to the company during the year under consideration. Since amount is given for transfer of the property, therefore, addition is wholly unjustified. The assessee also requested for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules for admission of the copy of the Agreement to Sell. The ld. CIT(Appeals) admitted his additional evidence under Rule 46A and also directed to fi le copy of the ownership of the property in question as well as current status of the property. The assessee ultimately pleaded before ld. CIT(Appeals) that the conditions of under section 2(22) (e) of the Act are not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shan Chhabra. (b)Sh. Harish Kumar (c) Sh. Gulshan Kumar. Copy of this sale deed is enclosed as Annexure-'B'. vi) The agreement to sell is for property No.B-XIII-124 while ownership documents are for property No.B-XIII-125. vii) As explained by the AR of the appellant no further action towards registration of property by the appellant had been taken even after expiry of more than 5 years from the date of agreement to sell. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the whole issue of claim by the appellant that the amount of ₹ 15.60 lacs was received towards advance for purchase of property is an afterthought and a sham transaction. There are number of factual discrepancies i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions and the documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings only ₹ 8.00 lacs were received as advance on account of purchase of property. No explanation regarding the remaining amount of ₹ 10,22,923/- has been submitted. Keeping in view the factual situation, the AO was fully justified in making the addition of ₹ 18,22,923/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and also f i led copy of the Agreement to Sel l dated 17.04.2007 and also further receipts of payments to show that ₹ 15,60,000/- was paid by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty in question. However, in the Agreement to Sell, assessee claimed to be owner of the property in question. In the Agreement to Sell, it is stated that assessee shall receive the balance amount at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed. However, till date, no Sale Deed is executed by assessee in favour of the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of making further payment to the assessee as advanced against the property in question. The other co-owner have never entered into any Agreement to Sell with the company. There was a difference in the property number also as noted by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that assessee's contention is after-thought and the entire tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
