9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order CIT(A) dated 27-11-2012, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee is aggrieved for addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,50,000/-. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the course of scrutiny assessment the AO has made addition of Rs. 9,50,000/- on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2(22)(e). 4. Learned AR relied on the decision of Chandigarh bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ashok Arya, passed in ITA No.1001/CHD/2010, dated 23-12-2013, wherein under similar facts and circumstances, it was observed that assessee has taken only temporary advance which has been returned to the company within a week. The assessee has also given similar advance to the company, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee having running account with the company, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted as this provisions was inserted to stop the misuse by the assessee by taking the funds out of the company by way of loans advances instead of dividends and thereby avoid tax. 6. Applying the proposition of law as discussed above to the facts of the present case, we found that assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
