9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fe and other members of the family. The Company was being managed and administered by the assessee as a Managing Director. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act') was initiated and during the course of search proceedings, several books of accounts and incriminating documents were found andseized. Consequent to the search, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, he filed the return of income declaring the same income as originally returned at Rs. 23,50,963/. Subsequently, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to him. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires were issued on various dates to the assessee and he filed replies. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was treated as a dividend within the meaning of Section2(22)(e) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in paragraph No.15 of its order came to the conclusion that the payment made to Sri K.P. Poddarby MEL was only an expenditure incurred for business expansion and profits of the Company. However, itconfirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. It came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act as applied in the case of the assessee are inapplicable to the facts in the case of assessee. That the amount of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(22)(e) of the Act is applicable would be inappropriate. The material would indicate that in terms of the agreement dated 16-8-2004, the payment has been made to Sri K.P. Poddar, who was the agreement holder. Therefore, the same cannot be doubted. 6. Heard learned counsels. 7. The material on record would indicate that a family settlement was arrived between Sri K.P. Poddar and his family members. The land in question fell to the share of Sri K.P. Poddar. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between Sri K.P. Poddar and MEL. In terms of the said agreement, the lease hold rights were transferred to MEL in order to operate the mining lease. For this, a refundable deposit amounting to Rs. 17.50 crores has been given by MEL to Sri K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to son is nothing unusual. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not examined Sri K.P. Poddar. He accepted the transaction of refundable non-interest bearing security deposit for mines as a commercial transaction. Therefore, we of the view that appreciation of the material on record by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. Even otherwise, we are also of the view that the issue involved revolves around appreciation of facts. 8. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the order of the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no ground for any interference. Consequently, we hold that a sum of Rs. 17.50 crores received from MEL by Sri K.P. Poddar and transferred to the assessee, who was the sharehol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
