9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee is an individual and is the proprietor of M/s Ashok Bansal & Co. and derives income from salary, brokerage, commission, interest and rent. He filed his return of income on 30th September, 2013 declaring nil income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received advances from a company, namely, M/s Saurabh (India) Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee is a major shareholder. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act shall not be invoked since the company has accumulated profits and the assessee has received advances from the said company to the tune of Rs. 13,78,656/-. Rejecting the various explanations give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant advanced to the company is to meet business exigencies and also to avail bank facilities. However, no material has been brought on record by the Ld. AR regarding business exigencies of the transactions. The Ld AR further submitted that there are three heads under which advances made between the appellant and the company. The details submitted by the Ld. AR is as follows:- "Saurabh India Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2012 31.03.2013 Unsecured Loan Rs. 1,61,97,250.00 Rs. 1,61,97,250.00 Dr. Advance A/c Rs. 10,45,330.00 Rs. 40,35,218.00 Dr. Current A/c Rs. 61,16,053.00 Rs. 74,94,709.00 Cr. Net Loan/Advances Rs. 1,11,26,527.00 Rs. 1,27,37,759.00 Dr. The Ld. AR further submitted that there is a debit balance in the head of unsecur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78,656/- in which he is a substantial shareholder and the company is having accumulated profits. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the contents of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee is maintaining three accounts with M/s Saurabh (India) Pvt. Ltd. and cumulatively the assessee had given advance of Rs. 1,27,37,759/- to this company and has not received any advances as such. The above submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee is not disputed by the Revenue since the detailed debits and credits in the three companies have already been reproduced by the CIT(A) in the order. I, therefore, find merit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness. He, therefore, rejected the claim of depreciation of Rs. 2,58,369/-. 10. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assets formed part of the block of assets since long and since the assessee has used the assets in the block, therefore, condition of use of individual asset is not applicable. Therefore, such depreciation disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is not proper. 12. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 13. After hearing both the sides, I find the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
