9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings of the ld CIT(A) that no materials were produced before the authorities below. Before us, no valid explanation was submitted by ld counsel for the assessee to prove that Silpa Agarwal has paid the amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- to the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.263/CTK/2018, ITA No.264/CTK/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2019 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri P.S.Panda/Kamal Agarwal, ARs For the Revenue : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR ORDER PER C.M.GARG,JM Both the appeals have been filed by the assessees against the separate orders of the CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar dated 16.11.2016 in respect of Sanju Agarwal and dated 2.1.2017 in respect of Subash Agarwal for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal in the case of Sanju Agarwal is time barred by 532 days and appeal in the case of Subash Agarwal is time barred by 476 days. Both the assessees viz wife and husband have filed condonation petitions alongwith affidavits stating therein that due to recession in infrastructure develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer in considering ₹ 50.00 Lakhs paid to Smt. Sanju Agarwal by M/s. ARSS Developers Ltd. as amount paid to the appellant and therefore treated it as deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 5. Ground Nos.1 7 of appeal are general in nature. 6. Ld counsel for the assessee did not press Ground No.6 of appeal, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Apropos Ground Nos.2, 3 4 of appeal, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has erred in considering the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs received by the assessee from his wife Smt. Sanju Agarwal as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Ld A.R. further submitted that the ld CIT(A) was not correct and justified in ignoring the submission filed before the AO considering the repayment of ₹ 23,25,000/- to Smt. Sanju Agarwal as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Ld counsel further submitted that the authorities below erred in making the addition u/s.68 of the Act on baseless ground considering ₹ 50 lakhs received from Sanju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en controverted neither by the AO nor by ld CIT(A) that amount of ₹ 50 lakhs was transferred to the account of the assessee from M/s. ARSS Developers Ltd., which has been accepted to be added in the hands of the assessee u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act by way of not pressing ground No.6. Ld A.R. submitted that in this situation due to this mistake in the statement of affairs of the assessee and his wife, the unsecured loan of ₹ 26,75,000/- was shown in the balance sheet of the assessee received from his wife and repayment of loan of ₹ 23,25,000/- was shown in the balance sheet of Smt. Sanju Agarwal from the assessee and if the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs has to be added in the hands of the assessee, which was directly received by him from ARSS Developers Ltd., then by way of adjusting this ₹ 50 lakhs, the factum of repayment of loan of ₹ 23,25,000/- by the assessee to his wife was to be accepted. Ld counsel submitted that if the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs is added in the hands of the assessee without treating the same as loan from his wife, then the final situation would be that in the beginning of the year an amount of ₹ 23,25,000/- was due against the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARSS Developers ltd., and the amount has been routed through the banking channel and has been taxed in the hands of the assessee as deemed dividend, no further addition in this regard amounting to ₹ 50 lakhs can be made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. This fact has not been disputed by ld D.R. that before transaction of ₹ 50 lakhs, amount of ₹ 23,25,000/- was due to the wife of the assessee Sanju Agarwal as debtor and when the assessee treated the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs as received from Sanju Agarwal as loan, the situation change and that is why the assessee has shown balance amount of ₹ 26,75,000/- as unsecured loan from his wife i.e. deducting ₹ 23,25,000/- from the notional amount of unsecured loan of ₹ 50 lakhs. When the controversy regarding amount of ₹ 50 lakhs has been solved by treating the same as dividend income in the hands of the assessee u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act then other relevant book entry cannot be held as sustainable and after reversing the same, no addition u/s.68 of the Act can be held as sustainable. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.263/CTK/2018: A.Y. 2011-12-Sanju Agarwal. 18. Ground Nos.1 3 are general in nature. 19. The effective Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee reads as under: 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to ₹ 50 lakhs received from ARSS Developers Ltd., as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 20. Ld A.R. submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 23.6.2015 submitted that the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs has been paid to the husband of the assessee Shri Subash Agarwal directly from ARSS Developers Ltd., on the request of the assessee, however, while preparing the statement of affairs, the said transaction was not incorporated which is an inadvertent mistake. Ld A.R. further submitted that since the husband of the assessee Shri Subash Agarwal has conceded that amount of ₹ 50 lakhs may be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, therefore, no addition is called for in the hands of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
