No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-51/IT/66/19(2)(5)/2017-18 dated 24/08/2018 qua confirmation of certain disallowances.
2 Shri Pukhraj Shreemalji Jain Assessment Year :2012-13
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared for assessee and therefore, the matter was proceeded with ex-parte qua the assessee on the basis of material on record and after hearing learned departmental representative.
1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident individual was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 20/03/2105 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10.70 Lacs after certain additions / disallowances as against returned income of Rs.5.06 Lacs filed by the assessee on 18/09/2012. 3.2 The assessee was saddled with disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.1.64 Lacs, computed @0.5% of investments held by the assessee. Another addition of Rs.4 Lacs was made invoking the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), being unsecured loan received by assessee from an entity namely Allied Feromet Pvt. Ltd., an entity in which the assessee held substantial shareholding of more than 10%.
Upon further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) directed for exclusion of investments made by the assessee in property, while computing disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AO was also directed to consider only exempt income yielding investments while computing the said disallowance. However, the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) were sustained in view of the fact that lending was not found to be substantial part of lender entity and the other conditions of Sec. 2(22)(e) were fulfilled. Aggrieved, the assessee is under further appeal before us.
Upon due consideration, we find that the factual matrix has duly been considered in right perspective by Ld. first appellate authority.
3 Shri Pukhraj Shreemalji Jain Assessment Year :2012-13 There is no material on record which would warrant us to deviate from the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the same.
The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd December, 2019. (C.N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member लेखा सद" / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 03/12/2019 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese
आदेशकी"ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""थ"/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु"/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड"फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.