9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT has emanated out of the Assessment order dated 28.03.2003. In the said Assessment order, the sum of Rs.6.60 Lakhs has been treated as dividend paid to the share holder/Director. In our considered view, the AO CIT(A), as also the ITAT have missed a relevant point that the ground floor of the premises has been purchased by M/s. DTDC. If the consideration amount towards the ground floor is considered, the entire sum of Rs.6.60 Lakhs cannot be treated as dividend. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration in the hands of ITAT which is the last fact finding authority. We also notice that ITAT has not recorded any reasons on this aspect. Appellant submitted that any finding recorded by this Court with regard to the construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that there is a deemed dividend merely based on the accumulated profits, is arbitrary unreasonable and perverse? 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee, at material point of time was a Director with M/s. DTDC Ltd. On March 28, 1995, M/s. DTDC gave Rs.6.60 Lakhs to the assessee and five other Directors, who were the joint owners of a property situated on Victoria Road, Bengaluru, with an intention to purchase the same for the benefit of the Company. According to Smt. Vani, learned Advocate for the assessee, the sum of Rs.6.60 Lakhs was paid to purchase the property for the benefit of the Company. The Board passed a Resolution on March 30, 1995 to purchase the land from the Directors. But, subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -consideration in accordance with law. After re-consideration, by the impugned order, the ITAT has dismissed assessee's appeal. 5. Smt. Vani, assailing the impugned order submitted that it is not in dispute that Rs.6.60 Lakhs was paid by M/s. DTDC towards purchase of the property. In view of the changed circumstances, M/s. DTDC thought it appropriate to treat the amount paid to the Directors as advance towards construction of ground floor premises and remaining towards deposit for taking the first floor and other floors on lease. She contended that the assessee and other Directors having constructed the building (ground + four floors) have executed a sale deed in respect of the ground floor of the premises in favour of M/s. DTDC and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt paid would be adjusted towards sale consideration of the property to be transferred to the Company as and when the sale deed were executed. It is also recorded that the building was constructed through a Company named M/s. Surya Homes. Parties are not at variance with regard to sale of ground floor to M/s. DTDC for a sale consideration of Rs.8,87,500/-. Thus, a portion of the agreement between M/s. DTDC and its Directors has been acted upon and an area of 963 sq. ft. in the ground floor has been sold in favour of M/s. DTDC. It is the specific contention of the assessee before this Court that the remaining amount out of Rs.39.60 Lakhs has also been beneficial to the Company because, the first floor and upper floors have been leased out on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
