TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accumulated profits. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the revenue and are not inclined to take a view different from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal. The arguments raise disputed questions of fact, which have been answered in favour of the assessee. In the absence of any error, while considering the facts or in applying any provision of the Act, we find no reason to hold that findings of facts recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) give rise to a question of law, much less, the questions of law framed by the revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No.225 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2013 - MR. RAJIVE BHALLA MR. DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, JJ. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. The assessee was running a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Radhe Sham Jain Diamond Jewellers. The proprietorship concern was converted into private limited company in the name and style of M/s. Radhe Sham Jain Diamond Jewellers Private Limited on 9.2.2008. The assessee was allotted 50% shares in the aforesaid company. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had withdrawn ₹ 1,81,10,000/- from the company. Upon inquiry, the assessee explained that ₹ 1.50 crores withdrawn from the capital account of the proprietorship concern, was originally withdrawn, from the proprietorship concern, but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of ₹ 1.50 crores. Perusal of the copy of the capital account of the assessee in the proprietary concern at page 11 to 13 clearly shows that there was opening capital balance of ₹ 1,64,34,402/-. There are various transactions done in the capital account till 08.02.2008 and there was a credit balance of ₹ 1,59,39,810/- on that date. Against which payment of ₹ 1.50 crores was made by the proprietorship concern to the assessee, i.e., Shri Radhe Sham Jain on 08.02.2008. This cheque was not encashed and shown as liability in the balance sheet. Because of the conversion of the proprietary concern into a Private Limited Company the cheque could not be encashed later on and the same was returned to the Private Limited com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this amount to the assessee, held that the amount belonged to the assessee on account of his capital in the proprietorship concern. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly restricted addition of ₹ 34,858/-, i.e., to the extent of accumulated profits. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the revenue and are not inclined to take a view different from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal. The arguments raise disputed questions of fact, which have been answered in favour of the assessee. In the absence of any error, while considering the facts or in applying any provision of the Act, we find no reason to hold that findings of facts recorded by the Income Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
