VIPLAV SOOD,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1244/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 March 2021AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had taken into account loans and advances from Mahashe Jewellers Pvt Ltd. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the additions mechanically. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made on account of deemed dividend. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had considered figures from Mahashe Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Mahashe Jewellers Pvt Ltd. respectively.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions on account of deemed dividend were made based on correct figures and proper consideration of the assessee's accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.06.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [in short ‘CIT(A)’]. 1 & 1244-C-2019 Shri Viplav Sood, Shimla 2. The assessee in these appeals has agitated the addition made by the lower authorities on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned assessment order and submitted that the Assessing officer while making the impugned additions has taken into account the figures of Mahashe Resorts Pvt. Ltd., wherein, the assessee had credit balance standing in their account

4.

The Ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the opening lines of para 6 of the order, wherein, the discussion regarding the addition on account of deemed dividend has been made which shows that, in fact, the Assessing Officer has taken note of certain loans and advances standing in the name of the assessee from Company M/s Mahashe Jewellers Pvt Ltd. in which the assessee is a director having substantial interest but while concluding, the Assessing Officer has mistakenly taken the figures of credit balance of the assessee in the account of Mahashe Resorts Pvt Ltd..

The Ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) also to show that even the Ld. CIT(A) has not looked into this aspect and confirmed the additions in a mechanical manner. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the matter may be restored to the & 1244-C-2019 Shri Viplav Sood, Shimla file of the Assessing Officer so that the assessee may be able to present true picture of its account.

5.

The Ld. DR has not objected to the same.

6.

In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh on this issue.

7.

Needless to say that the Ld. Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04/03/2021 Sd/- Sd/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 04/03/2021 Santosh

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →