TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The provisions of section 2(22)(e) in such circumstances, are obviously attracted. The assessee had tried to make out a case before the authorities that the said amount of ₹ 10,00,000 was received as advance or an imprest. CIT(A) has elaborately dealt with such contentions by giving dates on which small amounts of imprest were received by the assessee. Salary received by the assessee from the company is different from such amount of ₹ 10,00,000 received by the assessee. In fact, the assessee categorically admitted before the ADIT (Inv.) that the amount of ₹ 10,00,000 received by him was subsequently repaid. If, that be the situation, we fail to appreciate as to how the rigour of section 2(22)(e) of the Act can be avoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO was justified in not supplying the reasons before taking up the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. This ground, ergo, fails. - ITA No.1244/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2020 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Smt. Shabana Parveen ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04-04-2018 passed by the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad in relation to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The first issue raised in the appeal is against confirmation of addition of ₹ 10,00,000 as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. Briefly stated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee. In fact, the appeal was first fixed for hearing by the Tribunal on 17-01-2019. On finding the assessee unrepresented, the matter was adjourned for 25-02-2019. The position went on like this on several occasions thereafter. Today, again there is no change inasmuch as neither the assessee has appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed. As such, the appeal is being disposed off on merits ex-parte qua the assessee. 5. It is seen from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee is a director of Sankalp Seeds Private Limited. He was summoned by ADIT (Investigation), Aurangabad for verification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e satisfied that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are attracted in the instant case. Thus, the addition of ₹ 10,00,000 sustained in the first appeal is hereby affirmed. 6. Ground No.2 is against the AO not providing a copy of reasons to believe to the assessee. In this regard, it is observed from page 1 para 1 of the assessment order that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 10-03-2014, which was served upon the assessee. Since no return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act was filed, the AO did not furnish any such reasons. In fact, the assessee accepted this issue and did not assail this point in appeal before the CIT(A), who has reproduced at para 3 of the impugned order the grounds espoused before him in For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
