ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR vs. SHRI AKASH JAIN, UDAIPUR

आदेश / O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-1, Udaipur, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.33/IT/UDR/2016-17 dated 18/06/2020 which

2 ITA No.120/Jodh/2020 Sh. Akash Jain Assessment Year: 2013-14 has deleted addition of Rs.180 Lacs u/s 2(22)(e) as made by Ld.AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) on 14/03/2016. 2. The addition stem from the fact that the assessee received impugned advances of Rs.180 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Subh Laxmi Buildcon Private Limited during the year. The assessee was a director in that entity and held substantial interest of more than 10% in the said entity. The Ld. AO, invoking the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) as done in AY 2009-10, added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), following Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10, ITA No.423/Jodh/2014 dated 08/10/2015, held that the payments in question were normal business transactions and therefore, the same were not hit by the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e). The operative portion of the Tribunal order has already been extracted in the impugned order. Following the order for AY 2009-10, similar view was taken by coordinate bench of Tribunal in AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13. Therefore, the additions were deleted, against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. It is admitted position that the issue stood squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Tribunal for AY 2009-10. The Ld. AO has substantially relied upon assessment order finding for AY 2009-10. The decision for AY 2009-10 has subsequently been followed by the Tribunal in AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13. There is nothing on record that those decisions have subsequently been reversed, in any manner. No distinguishing features in the facts

3 ITA No.120/Jodh/2020 Sh. Akash Jain Assessment Year: 2013-14 have been pointed out. Therefore, no fault could be find in the approach of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. 5. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member

मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 21/12/2020 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, जोधपुर / DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, जोधपुर / ITAT, Jodhpur.