Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 43 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend - it was found by the AO that two payments of Rs. 1.60 crores and Rs. 1.10 crores were made to the assessee (Director) - Before AO, the assessee claimed that Shri S.J. Marshall (SJM), the father of the assessee had instructed the company to gift a sum of Rs. 1.60 crores to his son (the assessee) - The AO also observed that even if it is assumed that adjustment entry is a gift then also the same can be said to have taken place only on 31/3/2007, on which date such adjustment entries were made and debit prior thereto of the sums of Rs.1.60 cores and Rs. 1.10 cores on 20/4/2006 and 30/8/2006 respectively are loans received by the assessee from aforementioned company. Held that:- The case of the assessee has been mainly rejected on the ground that the letter written by the father of the assessee to the company was after thought moved of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the father of the assessee was not available for examination. The case of the A.O and CIT(A) is that the said letter is after- thought. The sale of the painting by the father of the assesse has not been denied. It has been the contention of the assessee that it was purchasing paintings in the regular course, as after purchasing the paintings from the father other purchases of painting are also made. No material whatsoever has not been brought on record by the revenue to suggest that the letter written by the father of the assessee to the company was an afterthought move. The AO could have examined the assessee as well as his father and also the company on this issue. This exercise has neither been done by A.O nor by CIT(A) to establish that the letter written by the father of the assessee to the company is after thought. If the genuineness of the purchase of painting by the company from the father of the assessee is not denied then in absence of any material it cannot straightaway be held that the letter written by the father of the assessee to the company was after-thought. The matter was required to be examined - Matter restored back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|