TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. - ITA Nos. 357/DEL/2016, ITA Nos. 358/DEL/2016, ITA Nos. 359/DEL/2016, ITA Nos. 3224/DEL/2015 And ITA Nos. 3225/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2017 - SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv For The Revenue : Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT-DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above five appeals filed by the assessee arise from different orders of the ld. CIT(A) as per details given below: ITA No. A.Y. CIT(A) order Dated 357/DEL/2016 2006-07 18.11.2015 358/DEL/2016 2010-11 18.11.2015 359/DEL/2016 2011-12 18.11.2015 3224/DEL/2015 2008-09 30.03.2015 3225/DEL/2015 2009-10 30.03.2015 2. Since the appeals pertain to same assessee and were heard together involving identical issues, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, my Affidavit alongwith details of shareholding which go to the root of the matter deserve to be admitted under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules as additional evidence for which reliance is placed on the following case laws: 351 ITR 57, CIT vs. Text Hundred India P. Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), which relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Venkataramaiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 SC 1526 and held at page 67-68 as under: The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when application is filed by one of the parties to the appeal and it need not to be a suo motto action of the Tribunal. The aforesaid rule is made enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion if the Tribunal holds the view that such additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of shareholders of M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd. Since this detail was not produced during the course of assessment proceedings inspite of the facts that the same was asked to be produced, there is no reason why this detail should be admitted at the appellate stage. This detail is clearly an additional evidence, the submission of which, is not covered under any exception to rule 46A. It is thus held that the AO has rightly understood the appellant to be holding more than 10% of equity shares of M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd. 3. That my shareholding in M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd. was 9% in Assessment Years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and not 50% as alleged by | the AO and CIT(A). 4. That during the course of assessment proceedings, AO did not confront me with regard to the addition sought to be made u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T. Act i.e. deemed dividend in respect of lean received from M/s Godwin Construction. 1. That the learned CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance to the extent of 10% as against 25% by the Assessing Officer out of the total expenditure of ₹ 81,50,92,376/- incurred bonafidely by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares of M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were applicable. The same were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the A.O and the ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer holding that the appellant held 50% beneficial holding in the company namely M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. assessed an amount of ₹ 4,89,740/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of ₹ 4,89,740/- has been stated by the A.O. as having been received as loans advances by the appellant during the year from the said company. On the above facts, it was prayed that the shareholding of the appellant was only 9% i.e. it was less than 10% of the total shareholding of the company and therefore no deemed dividend is assessable in the hands of the appellant in terms of that section because to make assessment of deemed dividend in the hands of shareholder, it is a condition precedent that he should hold 10% of the voting power in the company. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
