TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Addition as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that assessee on different dates during the relevant FY has received an amount of ₹ 45 lakh from M/s Euro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. wherein assessee is the Managing Director and majority shareholder. It is also not disputed that the said company is a company wherein public are not substantially interested. It is also a fact on record that during the year the company had accumulated profits. Therefore, all the conditions of section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Though, assessee has claimed that the amount received was not in the nature of loan/advance, but, towards purchase of land in the name of company, however, assessee has not produced even a singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration, assessee filed his return of income on 30//09/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 1,06,76,176. During the assessment proceeding, AO having noticed that assessee has received unsecured loan of ₹ 21,50,000 from his son Sri Ankit Singh, called upon assessee to furnish the bank statement, confirmation letter, IT particulars of Sri Ankit Singh to prove the loan transaction. After verifying the details submitted by assessee, AO found that Sri Ankit Singh was in receipt of ₹ 5,000 per month as interest income. However, huge transactions were carried out through his bank account. When assessee was asked to furnish the sources for deposits made in the bank account of Sri Ankit Singh, assessee submitted that Sri Ankit Singh is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 06211000012121 on 17/05/08 to his son s bank account numbered as 06211000023345 in HDFC Bank account and the amount was again returned back to assessee. In so far as the balance amount of ₹ 20,00,000 is concerned, ld. AR submitted that this amount was transferred from the bank account of M/s Mirra Packaging, a proprietary concern of assessee to his son s account and again transferred back to assessee from the bank account of Sri Ankit Singh. Thus, it was submitted by ld. AR that the source of unsecured loan and the deposits in the bank account of Sri Ankit Singh was fully explained. Ld. AR further fairly submitted that before AO and ld. CIT(A) assessee could not reconcile transfer entries by producing the bank account of M/s Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of M/s Mirra Packaging to the aforesaid saving s bank account of Sri Ankit Singh on 18/06/08. On a perusal of the bank statement relating to Sri Ankit Singh and M/s Mirra Packaging produced before us, assessee s statement, to certain extent appears to be correct. However, it is to be noted that assessee has not explained the source of deposits in the account of Shri Ankit Singh and subsequent transfer to assessee by producing relevant bank statements as a result of which addition was made by AO treating the unsecured loan as unexplained. Therefore, considering the fact that assessee before us has produced relevant bank statements and explained the source of deposits in the bank account of Shri Ankit Singh and subsequent transfer to asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by assessee that the amount received from the company was not in the nature of loan/advance, but, is actually towards purchase of property in the name of the company which did not materialize. AO, however, disbelieved the explanation of assessee in absence of supporting evidence. AO observed that as all the conditions of section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, the amount of ₹ 45 lakh received by assessee from M/s Euro Construction Pvt. Ltd. has to be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and accordingly made the addition. Though, assessee challenged the addition made in appeal before ld. CIT(A), but, ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by accepting the view expressed by AO. 10. Ld. AR, reiterating the submissions made before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 45 lakh from M/s Euro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. wherein assessee is the Managing Director and majority shareholder. It is also not disputed that the said company is a company wherein public are not substantially interested. It is also a fact on record that during the year the company had accumulated profits. Therefore, all the conditions of section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Though, assessee has claimed that the amount received was not in the nature of loan/advance, but, towards purchase of land in the name of company, however, assessee has not produced even a single evidence to justify the aforesaid claim. No specific evidence to show that any agreement was entered into for purchase of property or any advance was paid has been brou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
