TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated profit less than profit of Rs. 2,50,000/- CIT(A) while observing that the assessee has declared undisclosed income, uphold the findings of A.O in bringing to tax the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. neither even analyzing the issues in the light of provisions of sec.2(22)(e) or nor attempted to ascertain as to whether HUF is the beneficial shareholder or registered shareholder. Section 250(6) mandates that the order of the CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, thus in view of the foregoing, especially when the CIT(A) have not passed a speaking order, consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 27.10.2006 and concluded on 21.11.2006. During the course of search, certain pay slips relating to the assessee, depositing cash in their bank account were seized. Subsequently, in response to a notice dated 10.11.2008 issued u/s 153C of the Act, the assessee submitted his return declaring income of Rs.1,12,240/- on 20.11.2008. To a query by the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that no books of accounts were maintained nor any cash flow statement, income-expenditure account or statement of affairs was submitted nor the assessee explained the nature of entries in the bank account. The seized document at page 64 i.e pay-in-slip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of M/s D.N. Kansal Securities (P) Ltd. is less than Rs.2.50 Lacs but as the said company has declared undisclosed income, hence, its accumulated income is bound to be more than Rs.2.50 Lacs. Assessee has vehemently argued that provision of 2(22)(e) cannot be applied to him as he is not a registered shareholder or absolute owner. But this is not in dispute that assessee is the beneficial owner of 12% shareholding. Hence, said provisions are fully applicable on him and he cannot be escape the addition of Rs.2.50 Lacs. Hence, addition of Rs.2,50,000/- is upheld. 4. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A). At the outset, the ld. AR contended that mere transfer of profit by a company could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the A.O brought to tax profit of Rs.2,50,000/- received by the assessee HUF in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act ,without recording his specific findings as to whether the conditions stipulated in the said section were fulfilled. The ld. CIT(A) while accepting that the AO did not record any findings regarding the nature of transaction, concluded that the amount was in the nature of loan or advance. Since the company M/s D.N. Kansal Securities (P) Ltd. reflected accumulated profit less than profit of Rs. 2,50,000/- ,the ld. CIT(A) while observing that the assessee has declared undisclosed income, uphold the findings of A.O in bring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "concern" means a Hindu undivided family, or a firm or an association of persons or a body of individuals or a company; (b) a person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a concern, other than a company, if he is, at any time during the previous year, beneficially entitled to not less than twenty per cent. of the income of such concern; 7.2 Though both the sides relied upon a number of decisions, factual matrix in the context of provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act has not been explained. Even though the assessment order mentions date of receipt of profit on sale of shares as 4.2.2004 and the amount is claimed to have been received from the company M/s DN Kansal Securities (P) Ltd., the AO or the ld. CIT(A) did not anal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof by the quasi- judicial authorities has been read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure and is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision making process. Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in their decision in Vodafone Essar Ltd. Vs. DRP, (Delhi) held that when a quasi-judicial authority deals with alis, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter and further, the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum. We may point out that a decision do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
