TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 2. The facts of the three petitions are more or less common. Therefore, these three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Each of the Petitioners is a Director of M/s. Scan Holdings (P) Limited ('SHPL') which is engaged in the business of domestic and international trading in packaging material. 4. A common grievance in all three writ petitions is that the erstwhile auditor of SHPL, who is impleaded in these writ petitions as Respondent No. 2, has been addressing false and malicious communications about them for several years now and that this has led to the high-pitched assessments in the case of each of the Petitioners. It is further pointed out that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning of the assessment for the said AY was challenged by the Assessee Rajiv Agarwal in this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9659 of 2015. A separate petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9661 of 2015 was filed by his wife Smt. Vijay Laxmi Agarwal again seeking the quashing of the notice dated 31st March 2015 issued to her by the AO under Section 148 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessment for the AY 2008-09. The reason for reopening of the said assessments was the premium paid from time to time for 'key man insurance'. 9. Both the writ petitions were allowed by this Court by a common order dated 16th March 2016. The Court on merits found that there was no tangible material for the AO to have formed reasons to believe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and sold the same to the shareholder/director during FY 2007-08 for a meagre amount of Rs. 4,16,000. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 16,54,036 was proposed to be treated as perquisite in the hands of the Assessee. Thus it was alleged that income of Rs. 16,54,036 had escaped assessment under the head salary and Rs. 1,80,000 under the head 'income from house property'. 12. In the case of Rajiv Agarwal the reasons for reopening of the assessment were communicated, despite repeated requests, only by letter dated 31st October 2016. It alleged that payments for Rs. 1,45,25,137 by way of cheques dated 13th September 2008 and 12th December 2008 were made during the FY 2008-09 to M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited ('BEL') on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her noted that the amount standing as advance was adjusted against the Directors' salaries. From the chain of events, it was quite clear that there was no intention of advancing any sums to the Directors. The advances were paid by Directors acting on behalf of the company. The property was meant to be acquired by SHPL only. It was further claimed under the head 'Findings', it was noted that the contention of the Assessee was that "there has been no violation of Section 2 (22) (e) and Section 194 of the Act". Yet it was recorded that the said facts "needed verification in scrutiny and taxed accordingly." 14. Yet another reason given was that the Directors of the company have incurred Rs. 3 crore on construction/interior of residential house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed at Rs. 2,08,000. The surrendered 'market value' of the policy was to be treated as the business income in name of SHPL for the said FY 2007-08. The Assessee had paid premium on the said policy in 2008, 2009 as well as 2010 before the policy matured in his hands. The transfer value amount received from the Assessee has been offered by SHPL to tax as business income. 17. As regards the other substantive issue relating to renting out of office space acquired by the Assessee Juhi Dixit to SHPL, the allegation that the Assessee had not let out the property was denied as "patently false. There was nothing untoward about it either, for "Rental income as received for every money-earning asset acquired will have encumbrances before it offers a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Juhi Dixit. 20. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Krishnan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior standing counsel for the Respondent. 21. It is seen that the issue concerning deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) was also adduced for the reopening of the assessment for AY 2008-09. That has been comprehensively negatived by this Court and by allowing writ petitions filed by Rajiv Agarwal and Vijay Laxmi Agarwal by order dated 16th March 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 9659-9661 of 2015. 22. As regards the objections by Juhi Dixit, the Court finds that in the order dated 31st October 2015 disposing it the AO has failed to deal with the principal objection. It was pointed....