TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....") in IT(SS)A No.17/Ahd/2014 and 45/Ahd/2014, by proposing the following common questions, stated to be substantial questions of law:- "(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,86,660/- for assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 20,66,590/- for assessment year 2009-10 levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not appreciating the fact that the department had proved its case by concluding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, and therefore, the assessee had wrongly claimed loan in the guise of bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. The assessee contended that the advances were made during the course of ordinary course of business for business expediency. However, such submission did not find favour with the Assessing Officer as the assessee was a 100% owner of Vishal Overseas and a substantial shareholder in the company having more than 20% (28%) shareholding. The deemed dividend figure was calculated as per the "Vishal Overseas (Loan)" account only and not as per the other account for business transactions. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the business transactions between the company and the assessee were so arranged that there was no question of getting any advance from the company in the normal course. Hence, the amounts of Rs. 8,25,000/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer which have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. (ii) It is evident from the Assessing Officer's observation made in the assessment order that it was observed by him from the records found from the books of Shri Dipesh L. Shah, proprietor of M/s. Vishal Overseas that the loan of Rs. 8,25,000/- for assessment year 2008- 09 and Rs. 69,55,000/- in assessment year 2009-10 respectively, was received by him from M/s. Vishal Fashions P. Ltd. It clearly shows that the entire transactions of the loan were within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer while examining the books of accounts. (iii) The additions have been made as deemed dividend income under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It has been held by various courts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he course of ordinary business and owing to ongoing business transactions and thus not susceptible to provisions of section 2(22)(e) have been applied, the issue is not entirely free of any debate. As noted, section 2(22)(e) of the Act is only deeming provision of law and is not a substantive provision. Thus, in the absence of any perceptible malafides, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. Thus, we do not see any merits in the appeals of the Revenue." 6. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found as a matter of fact that the assessee had fully furnished and disclosed the facts and details of the transaction of loan taken by it from M/s. Vishal Fashions Private Limited, which had even not....