RAVI GEHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by AO u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:- 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-36 has erred in law and in facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by Learned Assessing Officer as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that amount was paid as trade advance towards purchase of capital rights in Flat No. 605, Wing A, at CTS No. 186B, Off Tunga Village, Saki Vihar Road, Kurla (W), 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mumbai for which documentary evidences were placed on record. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 36 has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by Learned Assessing officer as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax despite the fact that the appellant HUF is not a register shareholder and it was not possible to determine whether the Karta was entitled to not less than 20% of the income of the appellant HUF. 3. On the facts and circumstnaces of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36 has erred in confirming the levy of interest U/s 234A of Rs. 48,272/- u/s 234B of Rs. 4,34,448/- & 234C of Rs. 28,770/- by the AO. 4. All the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.”