Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1736 - AT - Income TaxAssessment framed u/s 153A - AY 2013-14- deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - whether incriminating material found or seized during the course of search indicating the alleged addition? - HELD THAT:- We note that the assessment for the year under consideration was not pending as on the date of search carried out on 3rd March, 2016. Therefore, the question arises whether the AO could make the addition in the proceedings under section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search. An identical issue has been considered by us in the connecting appeal in case of Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia [2019 (5) TMI 96 - ITAT JAIPUR] and held that the invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue was without any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those AYs. Addition made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the same is deleted. Since we have decided the issue on the validity of the addition in favour of the assessee, therefore we do not propose to go into the merits of the addition made by the AO under section 2(22)(e). Addition made u/s 2(22)(e) - AY 2016-17- HELD THAT:- While considering the identical issue in case of Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia (supra), we have held that the amount given by the company was not for trading or business purposes of the said company but this amount was given to the assessee for making the investment in the shares of the company though the said investment was required for taking the loan from the bank. It was the duty of the promoters as a shareholder of the said company to infuse more capital in the said company, therefore the fund of the said company used by the assessee is nothing but the loan/advance in terms of section 2(22)(e). Since the facts as well as the issue is identical, therefore, in view of our finding in case of Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia(supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the order of ld. CIT (A) qua this issue.
|