TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 358/DEL/2016 2010-11 18.11.2015 359/DEL/2016 2011-12 18.11.2015 3224/DEL/2015 2008-09 30.03.2015 3225/DEL/2015 2009-10 30.03.2015 2. Since the appeals pertain to same assessee and were heard together involving identical issues, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee has sought permission to raise the following additional ground of appeal in all the assessment years under consideration: "That the addition made on account of deemed dividend made u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T. Act in respect of loans received from M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd. for the above mentioned assessment years under appeal deserves to be deleted as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above Affidavit. In other words, principles of natural justice had been violated by the AO. 4. Details of shareholding of the Appellant in M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. for the aforesaid assessment years were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove that the shareholding of the Appellant was less than 10% in such Co. and therefore, the addition made on account of deemed dividend was legally untenable. However, the Ld. CIT(A) refused to admit such additional evidence. 5. In view of the above, my Affidavit alongwith details of shareholding which go to the root of the matter deserve to be admitted under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules as additional evidence for which reliance is placed on the following case laws: 351 ITR 57, C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "It is, thus, clear that the Tribunal found the requirement of the said evidence for proper adjudication of the matter and in the interest of substantial cause. Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules categorically permits the Tribunal to allow such documents to be produced for any substantial cause. Once the Tribunal has predicated its decision on that basis, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. As a result, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue resulting into dismissal of these appeals". 217 ITR 510, Deva Singh Guru Bux Singh Vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Allahabad H.C.), in which it was held as under: "Rules 29, 30 and 31 of the Income -tax (Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der any exception to rule 46A. It is thus held that the AO has rightly understood the appellant to be holding more than 10% of equity shares of M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd." 3. That my shareholding in M/s Godwin Construction (P) Ltd. was 9% in Assessment Years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and not 50% as alleged by | the AO and CIT(A). 4. That during the course of assessment proceedings, AO did not confront me with regard to the addition sought to be made u/s 2(22)(e) of I.T. Act i.e. deemed dividend in respect of lean received from M/s Godwin Construction." "1. That the learned CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance to the extent of 10% as against 25% by the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC). In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we admit the additional ground of appeal. 8. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that he appellant is a proprietor of M/s Godwin Oil and Services and director of M/s Godwin Constructions Pvt. Ltd. He had earned income from various sources and filed his return of income at Rs. 2,25,429/- during the year under reference. A search and survey was conducted upon the premises of the appellant on 09.09.2010, thereafter notice u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] was issued to the assessee on 23.02.2012. The proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, were completed vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reference as certified by practicing company secretary was placed on record in the paper book in support of the fact that the shareholding of the appellant in the said company was only 9% during the year under appeal. It was argued that for that reason alone no addition u/s 2(22)(e) towards deemed dividend can be made in the hands of the appellant and, therefore, the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 10. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 11. We have perused the list containing details of share holding of the company duly certified by the Company Secretary which is on record. As per the same, the share holding of the appellant is only 9% but this fact has to be verified by the authorities be....