Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDYSmt. Prerna Abrol vs.
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order dated 05.02.2015 of Ld.CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09, on the following grounds.
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld.A.O. in making addition of Rs.4,50,000/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.4.50,000/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld.AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.”
After hearing rival contentions I find that the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is bad in law for the reason that, no amount was advanced to the assessee. The reply of the assessee is brought out at para 5.2 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is extracted for ready reference.
Smt. Prerna Abrol “The reply of the assessee is based on the argument that as per the assessee, this amount was advanced by M/s Indian Armour Systems P.Ltd. for the purpose of booking a flat from a builder i.e. M/s Omaxe Ltd. As per the assessee, the builder had refused to book a flat in the name of the company and thus the booking was made through, and in the name of the assessee and thus this payment of Rs.4,50,000/- was made to the assessee for this purpose. In its support the assessee has furnished the balance sheet of M/s Indian Armour Systems P.Ltd. Wherein in the balance sheet, the flat payment appears as an investment. Secondly, the assessee has furnished a copy of the board resolution of M/s Indian Armous Systems P.Ltd. dt. 17.3.2008. Both these evidences had also been furnished before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, as is evident from para 3.1 of the assessment order. Thus, in the sense the assessee has failed to bring out any fresh evidence to support his contention.” 2.1. The company M/s Indian Armour Systems P.Ltd. had advanced the amount in question to the builder M/s Omaxe Ltd. for purchase of property. The advance/investments was reflected by the company M/s Indian Armour Systems P.Ltd. in its books of accounts and balance sheet. Under these circumstances the addition made u/s 2(22((e) of the Act as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th November,2015.