9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, these addition made dehors incriminating material found during the search which are liable to be deleted on the touchstone of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] they are directed to be deleted as such. Thus additions are liable to be deleted on account of lack of incriminating material. Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - AO contended that Assessee is a common director and substantial shareholder in both the companies and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get attracted and made addition - Assessee submitted that the assessee was not a registered shareholder in the concerned company from which the loan was obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.11.2016 at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 20 lakh on the ground that the assessee was not in position to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of loan. 3. Similar addition was made on estimate basis for lack of books of account along with bill and vouchers with relationship to the various expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the expenses amounting to Rs. 48,53,306/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. Upon assessee s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the merits of the addition and deleted the same. 5. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the aforesaid additions. 6. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions on merits of the issue. 11. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. The assessee has filed a petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by raising the ground that these additions are not sustainable as there is no incrimination material found, as a result of search and the assessment attained finality. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that in the assessment order with regard to the addition u/s 68 of the Act of unsecured loan and unexplained expenses, there is no any seized material and these additions are dehors any seized material found during the search. This aspect was fairly conceded by the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ankitech (P) Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 0014(Del.) for the proposition that addition for deemed dividend made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act can be done in the hands of the shareholder only. Since, the assessee is not registered shareholder in the loan given company, the addition on the touchstone of above case laws is not sustainable. Hence, we delete the same. 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. ITA No.1335/Del/2021 19. In this case, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made three additions in this case are as under:- Nature of addition Amount Advance payments ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered the submissions of the appellant and also the contention of the AO. From the facts and details reproduced above, It is evident that the AO has not looked into nature of the payments made by the appellant and has made the addition in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. My remarks emanate from the following facts available on record: i. Of the total payments of Rs. 21246170/-, transactions of Rs. 52,00,000/- were never made. ii. Of the balance amount, payments of only Rs. 1039022/- were liable for deduction of tax at source and the appellant had duly complied with the applicable TDS provisions. iii. The other transactions either did not attract tax deduction at source or were below the applicable thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
