TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed finality in the apex court, of the considered opinion that as of now, in view of the Hon ble ITAT Chennai s decision of the confirmation of addition of ₹ 4.54 Crores, the addition in the hands of the appellants - Mr.S.Sundaramoorthy and Mr.T.Padmakumaron a protective basis by the A O clearly amounts to a double addition and therefore, is unfair and unreasonable, which deserves to be deleted. does not require any interference and hence the Revenue s above appeals are dismissed. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2685/Chny/2019, I.T.A. No. 2805/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2020 - Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member And Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of ₹ 7.54 Crores from M/s Symbiotic Infotech Ltd. to a firm namely, M/ s SubhavarshaInfotech. The three shareholders in the company of M/ s Symbiotic Infotech Ltd., namely Mr.S. Sundaramoorthy, Mr.T. Padmakumar and Mr.J . Selvakumar, were also partners in the firm, M/s SubhavarshaInfotech. Out of the fund transferred of ₹ 7.54 Crores, the firm - M/s SubhavarshaInfotechtransferred ₹ 4.54 Crores to the above three partners and the remaining ₹ 3 Crores to Smt. Priya Rachel, wife of the one of the partner s/shareholder s close friend and therefore to a third party. By observing that it was a deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), the Assessing officer added the entire fund received of ₹ 7.54 Crores in the hands of M/ s Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed the addition of deemed dividendto the extent of ₹ 4.54 Crores in the hands of the firm, M/s SubhavarshaInfotechand the firm has also accepted the ITAT s decision, further additionof the same amount in the hands of the firm s partners amount to double addition and therefore, the impugned additions should be deleted. With regard to the addition of ₹ 3 Crores confirmed by the Hon ble ITAT, Chennai in the hands of the firm, the firm has not accepted the ITAT s decision and has contested in appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Madras, on the ground that the said amount was neither received by the firm nor by the partners.The assessee s have pointed out that the aforesaid decision was mentioned by the apex court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramoorthy and Mr.T.Padmakumar are deleted. 3. The Ld. DR submitted the cases on the lines of grounds of appeal, supra. Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted on the same lines submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on them. 4. We heard the rival submissions. The relevant issue to be considered here is, whether the addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of ₹ 4.54 Crores already confirmed by the Hon ble ITAT, Chennai in the hands of the firm - M/s SubhavarshaInfotechcan now be considered also in the hands of the above partners protectively.We have gone through the order of this tribunal in the case of M/s SubhavarshaInfotechVs. DCIT in cross appeals vide ITA No.2365/CHNY/2016 and 1TA No.2805/CHNY/2016 dated 5-12-2018. The relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the one before Hon ble Apex Court in National Travel Services (supra). 14. Coming to the question of relief given to the assessee for the sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000/ - given by the assessee firm to Smt. Priya Rachel, it is an admitted position that Smt. Priya Rachel was the wife of one of friends of a partners. Or in other words, assessee could not have advanced the loan of ₹ 3,00,00,000/-, she was not closely related to one of the partners. No doubt, id.Authorised Representative argued that such loan given to Sm. PriyaRacherl did notindividually benefit any partners or firm and hence Section 2(22) (e) of the Act would not apply. However, we are of the opinion that such a narrow definition to the word individual benefit cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
