TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion that the decision given by the CIT(A) in his order is fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1918/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM Appellant by : Ms. Sabhana Parveen Respondent by : Shri Sanket Joshi ORDER D. Karunakara Rao, This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-2, Nashik dated 30.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under :- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nashik was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,48,73,753/- on account of deemed dividend? ii) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /advance was done in the context of giving the assets of the assessee. High value assets of the assessee are mortgaged. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s submissions dated 23.02.2015 wherein assessee mentioned that the assessee mortgaged his property for the benefit of the company for getting the loan of ₹ 5 crores for the company. As a guarantor, the liability to pay the loan is on the assessee and the same constitutes the huge liability. This liability is much more than the loans/advance taken by the assessee from the company. 4. During the first appellate proceedings, this issue was adjudicated by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not deemed dividend when the liability of the company of ₹ 5 crores is on the asessee. On hearing both sides and perused the said judgement, we find the said judgement is relevant for the following legal proposition and held portion of the same is extracted as under :- Allowing the appeal, that for retaining the benefit of loan availed of from the bank if decision was taken to give advance to the assessee such decision was not to give gratuitous advance to its shareholder but to protect the business interest of the company. The sum of ₹ 20,75,000 could not be treated as deemed dividend. 9. From the above, it is evident that in case of non-gratuitous advances, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act has no applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
