9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea that he was not a shareholder in M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. at the time of granting of loan by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and this contention was proved by filing the shareholding pattern of the said company. Even on remand to the Assessing Officer by ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer also concurred with the submission of the respondent-assessee that he is not a shareholder in M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. at the relevant point of time. CIT(A) accordingly concluded that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application to the facts of the present case. This fact has not been controverted by the ld. Sr. DR. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with ROC (Registrar of Company)? 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact correctly because the change of share holding pattern is nothing but after thought of the assessee so as to show that the assessee was not holding the share of the SCDPL (Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Private Limited). 5) The order of the Ld. AO be upheld and the Ld. CIT(A) is to be deleted. 6) The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The respondent-assessee is an individual deriving income under the head Income from salary and business . The ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elopers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. is in the nature of business transaction, hence, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application. The Assessing Officer rejecting the above contention by holding that there was no evidence in support of the contention that loan was given during ordinary course of business transaction, had brought to tax a sum of Rs.56,81,680/- as deemed dividend in the hands of the respondent-assessee vide order dated 15.03.2013 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the respondent-assessee disputed the fact that he is a shareholder i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hareholder in the said company. 7. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that when an assessee is not a shareholder in the company, which is beneficiary of the loan, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application and the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on proper appreciation of facts and law and no interference is called for. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the applicability of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of Rs.56,81,680/- being the amount of loan advanced by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd.. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
