9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner filed a revision. Exhibit P-2 is the revisional order. The revisional authority accepted the claim of the petitioner to exclude the addition of 4/5ths share of agricultural income of minor sons and wife. The revisional authority has not accepted the contention of the petitioner in respect of the addition to the petitioner's income under the heads (a), (b) and (c) mentioned above. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging exhibit P-2 revisional order. The addition on account of insufficient drawings has not been challenged before me. The only challenge is on account of addition of deemed dividend and unexplained investment. Regarding the unexplained investment, the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coming Within the definition of deemed dividend. The petitioner is the managing director and the company is a private limited company and section 2(22)(e) is admittedly attracted in a case provided what is paid to the managing director by the company on March 26, 1984, to be characterised as a loan or advance. The petitioner's contention was that he has not taken any loan or advance from the company. He had availed of a loan of Rs. 2,57,250 from Syndicate Bank on March 2, 1984, which was paid to the company on the same day and the company acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. That was a loan from the managing director to the company. That loan was partly repaid on March 26, 1984. The amount of Rs. 1,20,000 received on March 26, 1984, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but only a repayment of part-payment of the loan earlier advanced by the assessee to the company. In order to verify that the respondents would have called for the bank account of the assessee and the assessee may not have furnished the bank account. There is no statement that the bank account has not been produced and it is also not stated that there is no evidence before the first respondent, or the revisional authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioner availed of a loan from any bank and that the amount has been given by way of loan to the private limited company. Therefore, exhibit P-2 in so far as it rejects the claim of the petitioner called for interference. I, therefore, quash exhibit P-2 in so far as it rejects the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
