9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax ('PCIT') has proposed the following questions of law:- "i. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT has not erred in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,57,01,194/- made by AO under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Krishna Vs. PCIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC)? ii. Whether in law and on facts of the case the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is not erroneous and not perverse?" 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the Commissioner, Income Tax Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived from the company by the assessee was in the nature of trade advanced booking of commercial place being built by the assessee. Both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have further held that in the present case, it was the company which owed money to the assessee rather than the other way round. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal are reproduced hereinbelow:- Finding of the CIT(A):- "12. The AO had further highlighted in the assessment order at page no 9 that the appellant had taken loans and advances from Apra Auto (India) P Ltd in earlier years as well. In this regard, the appellant was directed to file his ledger account with Apra Auto (India) P Ltd and vice- versa so as to see if the facts were as highlighte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant with the company in which he is substantially interested as not being in the ordinary course of business. Nothing has been highlighted to draw any distinction between the two transactions as the language as well as the judicial stamp paper used for both the transactions is exactly the same. Therefore, I don't find logic in the conclusion of the AO in treating the impugned transaction with M/s Apra Auto India P. Ltd as being one for the purposes of avoiding the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Here, it would be important to note that the appellant had an amount receivable to the tune of Rs. 78,84,793 and Rs. 1,95,390 as on 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2011 from M/s Apra Auto India P. Ltd. The perusal of the copy of account shows that duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance of Rs. 5,62,00,000/- against sale of commercial space is not a receipt in the nature of loan or advance as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which attracts the provisions of in that section as the said advance is in the nature of business advance which did not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. Having gone through the entire factum of the issue, the case laws cited by both the parties, rationale of the ld. CIT (A), keeping in view the fact that it is the company which owes the assessee the money rather vice-versa, it is unequivocally proved that the advance received from the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
