9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Year 2015-2016 and the consequential Speaking Order passed by the first respondent on 17.02.2022 overruling the objections of the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment that was completed on 29.12.2017. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his mother purchased a flat in Mylapore by investing a total sum of Rs. 7,19,44,048/- by registering a Sale Deed on the undivided share on 30.06.2014 and entering into a Construction Agreement with the builder namely M/s.Chaitanya Builders on the same date. 4. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,19,44,048/- includes taxes leviable under various direct tax enactments (both State and Central). 5. The specific case of the petitioner is that the invocation of machinery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 19.10.2024 on account of low tax effect i.e., the monetary policy of the Government. 10. It is submitted that in the notices that preceded the Impugned Notice/Communication dated 26.03.2021, the petitioner was called upon to explain the source of the amount of Rs. 3,10,22,424/- which was contributed towards acquisition of the flat being 50% of the amount paid during the Financial Year 2014-2015 (Assessment Year 2015-2016) for a sum of Rs. 6,20,44,848/-. 11. The Assessing Officer had considered the explanation given by the petitioner and had added a sum of Rs. 3,10,22,424/- as "deemed income" of the petitioner in terms of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which now stands deleted vide Order dated 22.02.2023 of the Appellate Tribunal in the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld submit that the Order of ITAT cannot said to have attained finality as the question of law is still at large as the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed only on account of low tax effect. However, it would not mean that the Department is precluded from reopening the assessment merely because the petitioner had taken up a contra stand in appeal against the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017. 16. That apart, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that there is a clear embargo under Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the Company to give loans to its Directors or others and therefore submits that the so called loan given by the Company is not in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents. 23. The reasons communicated to the petitioner for reopening the assessment reads as under:- "As per the information available with the department, during financial year 2014-15 the assessee had purchased a property for an amount of Rs. 3,59,72,024/-. For acquiring the property assessee received entire amount from the company M/S Integrated Enterprises India Private Ltd in which assessee holds 29% of shares. At the time of completing the assessment u/s 143(3), the amount received from the company has been treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. While computing the total income an amount of Rs. 3,10,22,424/- was wrongly added instead of Rs. 3,59,72,024/-. The difference of the above amounts needs to be ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
