9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice, the assessee has made financial transactions in the nature of loans with M/s Rushil Decor ltd. a private company during the year. Upon verification of the above information and analysis of the facts of the case, it is noticed that the assessee was holding 21.87% shares in the company M/s Rushil Decor Ltd. and the assessee had received Rs. 4,17,65,430/from the company during the year in the form of loans. The fact that the above mentioned receipts are in the nature of loan from the company can be seen from the Auditor's report in the case of company where under the head, "related party transaction" the amount of loans received by the assessee from the company are mentioned. The company M/s Rushil Decor Ltd. was a closely hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in his income. Moreover, in part ABS of the ITR for 2010-11 the assessee has not shown any unsecured loans or deposits from any source. Thus, the loan received by the assessee from the company has not even been declared in the ITR. In view of above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 4,17,65,430/has escaped assessment due to failure on part of the assessee in making true and full disclosure of all material facts relevant for assessment. And therefore, the case needs to be reopened for reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961." 2. Upon being supplied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised detailed objections under a communication dated 01.06.2017. Such obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audited accounts in the balancesheet which we have perused. The amount in question is shown as a demand to the said company. Loan is an advance made by the petitioner to the said company. The stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded that such sum was received by the petitioner from the company by way of a loan, is thus even otherwise not correct. We have therefore proceeded on such basis. If that be so, the reason for reopening the assessment completely lacked validity. The sole ground to reopen the assessment was that the loan received by the petitioner from private company should be treated as a deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When on facts the petitioner is able to show that the amount in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
