9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Promod Kumar Dang [ 2005 (11) TMI 193 - ITAT DELHI-A] has been rightly distinguished by the Ld. CIT(A) and cannot be applied to the instant case. However, we also find that the assessee has included the undisclosed income in its books of account resulting an increase in the accumulated profits of the company. CIT(A) has rightly computed the accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act subject to verification of certain tax challans as detailed in para 5.7 and 5.8 of the CIT(A)‟s order. We also note that the Ld. AO has rightly considered the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) and passed the consequential order revising the order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n short AO), based on the submissions made by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee has obtained a loan amount of Rs. 1,01,83,381/- from the company, which was assessed as deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee being a 25% share holder in VEIL, and assessee being a beneficial holder of the shares. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. Subsequently, the Revenue went on appeal to ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Hon‟ble ITAT vide its order in ITA No.281 282/V/2010, dated 6/9/2011 set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to determine the accumulated profits in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be prayed at the time of hearing. However, we note that a consequential order has been passed by the Ld. AO on 30/06/2016 granting relief of Rs. 52,32,671/-. 4. Additionally, the assessee filed a petition for admission of additional grounds as below: 1. The Ld. AO was not justified in reopening the case U/s. 148 and after elapse of 1380 days (almost 4 years) from the end of the financial year and that too without having cogent reasons and base or valid/sound proof as the payments were made in the AY 2005-06. Hence, assessment proceedings based on the notice U/s. 148 are not maintainable. 2. The payments were cleared during the AY 2005-06, if at all, the issue of deemed dividend is to be considered it was in the AY 2005- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. (ii) NCK Sons Exports (P.) Ltd vs. ITO, reported in 102 ITD 311 (Mum.). (iii) Empee Holdings Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2019] 112 taxmann.com 319 (Chennai. Trib.) 8. We have heard both the sides and gone through the materials available on record and the order of the Authorities below. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is extracted herein below for convenience: 2(22)(e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) 5 made after the 31st day of May, 1987 , by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO while passing the consequential order. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 10. With respect to issue raised in additional grounds of appeal regarding reopening of the case U/s. 148 of the Act, we find from the record that the Ld. AO has rightly given the reasons for such reopening and reopening is well within the period as prescribed under the Act. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 11. Since, the Ground No.1 of the original grounds of appeal is adjudicated, second ground raised by the assessee in the additional grounds of appeal needs no separate adjudication. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
