9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by cheque also dated 9th May, 2008. Thus, on the consideration of the entire evidence, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal come to a concurrent finding of fact that the amount of Rs.4.48 Crore is not a loan to be covered by Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the view taken by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal on facts, is a possible view and cannot be said to be perverse. Exchange of money OR advance for purchase of property - transactions between the two entities in which the assessee had substantial shareholdings - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while dealing with the remand report noticed the fact that the MoU dated 9th May, 2008, which was produced during the assessment proceedings before the AO was completely ignore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in ignoring the fact that the ledger confirmation account of the transactions between the two entities in which the assessee had substantial shareholdings clearly indicated that it was not a single transaction of a deposit being paid for proposed purchase of property as claimed by the assessee, but a series of transactions with regard to exchange of money and that the closing balance of Rs.4,48,69,800/ as per the ledger account of M/s. Ace Divine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. in the books of M/s. Dinurje Pvt. Ltd., was correctly added to the income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act, 1961? 3 Brief facts: (i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. ADJPL to M/s. DJPL but it was an advance for purchase of property. Thus, holding that provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was not applicable while allowing the appeal; (iii) Being aggrieved with order dated 20th March, 2015, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 17th December, 2015 on examination of facts, upheld the order of the CIT(A) and it found that the explanation given by the Assessee was duly supported by the documentary evidence and also the remand report called for by the CIT(A), which did not challenge the truth of the MoU dated 9th May, 2008. Thus, coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.4.48 Crores which was given by M/s. ADJPL to M/s. DJPL was in connection with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was duly considered by the CIT(A) when he called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer did not dispute the fact that the notarized of MoU dated 9th May, 2008 was for sale/ purchases of office premises. This document was also produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings but the same was not even considered by the Assessing Officer. The MoU dated 9th May, 2008 was duly supported by cheque also dated 9th May, 2008. Thus, on the consideration of the entire evidence, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal come to a concurrent finding of fact that the amount of Rs.4.48 Crore is not a loan to be covered by Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (iii) Therefore, the view taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
