2017 (6) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also called `the Act') to Rs. 18,10,000/- 3. Briefly stated, the facts of this issue are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Puneet Metal Industries engaged in trading of steel and other metals. Apart from that, the assessee is also a shareholder of M/s Puneet Metal Pvt. Ltd. (PMPL). The Assessing Officer observed that a sum of Rs. 7,28,379/-was shown to have been received by the assessee as an advance from PMPL. On being called upon to explain as to why the said amount be not treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, the assessee submitted that there was no advance received by him from PMPL and the amounts in this account were on account of trade transactions. Not convinced, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,28....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. Address of M/s PMPL given on the same invoice is 10578/6, Shankar Gali No.2, Motiakhan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. The ld. AR contended that PMPL is located in the same street and, hence, there was no need of any transportation of goods through lorry. In my considered opinion this contention merits acceptance and has been wrongly rejected by the ld. CIT(A). When the assessee's premises and premises of PMPL are located in the same street, there is no requirement to hire lorry for carrying the goods. The ld. AR has invited my attention towards stock register of PMPL, a copy at page 42 of the paper book, which shows the corresponding receipt of goods from the assessee. It can be seen from the account of M/s PMPL in the assessee's books for prec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,000/- 21.01.2012  - Rs.4,00,000/- 31.01.2012  - Rs.5,00,000/- 03.02.2012  - Rs.63,000/- Total - Rs.26,12,832/- 7. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. first appellate authority did not raise any query about the nature of receipts which were, in fact, not in the nature of dividend. It was submitted that none of the above transactions attracted the provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 8. Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is observed that the combined account was filed by the assessee with the ld. CIT(A) on 21.11.2016, which happens to be the last date of hearing as recorded on the titles of the impugned order. This shows that th....