9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view that such a highly debatable issue at the relevant point of time [Assessment Years under consideration] cannot be the subject matter of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income when the facts were very much available with the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). - Decide against revenue. - ITA No. 3801/DEL/2015 ITA No. 3802/DEL/2015 ITA No. 3803/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2022 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee By : Shri Arun Kishore, CA Department By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of M/s Raas Intratech [P] Ltd, amount received by M/s Raas Intratech [P] Ltd was added as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 7. Appeal was preferred against the assessment order by M/s Raas Intratech [P] Ltd. 8. After considering the facts, the ld. CIT(A) directed that addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act should be made in the hands of Shri Chetan Seth [the assessee] in the present appeal. On treating the deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee, penalty proceedings were separately initiated and penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer read as under: 5. It is a matter of fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its income and that there was an intentional attempt to evade taxes. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the penalty order. In our considered opinion, the loan transaction was duly reflected in the books of account of the two companies and in fact, the loan transaction was treated as deemed dividend in the hands of M/s Raas Intratech [P] Ltd but subsequently, on the directions of the ld. CIT(A), the same was added in the hands of the assessee. 10. In our considered view, at the inception itself, the issue being highly debatable, as to in whose hands the addition has to be made, therefore, the first appellate authority was convinced that the addition has been made in the deeming provision and is debatable. 11. We are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
