Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (6) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, illegal and beyond jurisdiction. ii. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of initiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 by Assessing Officer, which is beyond jurisdiction of Assessing Officer. iii. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan taken by Appellant from M/s Performance Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Nishant Finvest Pvt. Ltd., without bringing any adverse material on record against the appellant, therefore addition made is illegal, against provisions of Income Tax Act, against facts & circumstances and is bad in law. iv. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 27,00,000/- u/s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Rs. 4,00,000/- being the amount received from the alleged entry provider and another addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- as deemed dividend under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being aggrieved by this order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who vide order dated 17.10.2011 dismissed the appeal both on the preliminary ground challenging in the reassessment proceedings and as well as on the merits of additions. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up before us with the present appeal. 3. The learned Authorized Representative argued that the reasons recorded under Section 148 were furnished to the assessee after the lapse of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the rea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accepted in the light of the material on record that M/s Nishant Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s Performance Trading & Investment are only entry providers which means that the money in cash was provided to them by the assessee. The assessee is supposed to prove the source for this cash. He further argued that the loans were accepted by way of cheque are not sacrosanct. In respect of deemed dividend, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the act are applicable. He placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. Firstly, we deal with the preliminary ground of appeal i.e. ground no. 2, challenging the jurisdiction under Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the reasons were asked within the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the same before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (supra) is not at all applicable to the fact of the preset case. Hence, the reassessment proceedings are valid in law. 6. Now, we shall deal with the merits of the addition on account unsecured loans. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was received, Rs. 2 lakhs each from M/s Nishant Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s Performance Trading & In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of Section 68 of the Act and therefore, we hereby confirm the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs. 7. As regard the addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, the admitted facts are that the assessee has given building contract to one of his associate concerns, namely, M/s Seth Kishan Chand & Associates vide agreement dated 15th May, 2001 in which the assessee is substantially interested for construction of industrial building. In terms of this contract, the said concern M/s Seth Kishan Chand and Associates had raised a bill for sum of Rs. 27 lakhs on 15th March, 2003 for the work done. This is shown as payable in the books of the appellant for the relevant assessment year. This, according to the Assessing Officer, constituted a paymen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates