2018 (12) TMI 1139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whether issued for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thus illegal and unsustainable, making the impugned penalty order levying penalty of Rs. 12,96,955/- without jurisdiction and illegal. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, no penalty can be levied on deemed income u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. 3. That without prejudice, on merits, under the facts, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) should be levied. 2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, has stated that ITAT vide its order dated 19.11.2018 in quantum appeal No. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany and received loan, therefore, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act would not be attracted". PB-22 is rent agreement between assessee, his wife and M/s. Designarch Infrastrucutre Pvt. Ltd., for letting-out property. PB-20 is confirmation whereby it is confirmed that advance rent of Rs. 12,50,000/- through cheque was given to the assessee for rent of 25 months. Similarly, rent security deposit of Rs. 2,80,000/- equivalent to four months rent was given to assessee (Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain). It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that assessee in fact, has let-out the joint property to the tenant company and has received advance as well as security deposit of the aforesaid amounts. The authorities below rejected t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of the assessee because assessee claimed that the Company agreed to purchase the property from the assessee on certain terms and conditions. The said purchase under the agreement by the Company would benefit the Company. Thus, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. It is not in dispute that it was the property of the assessee and if assessee received advance against the sale of the property, it could not be treated as deemed dividend. The genuineness of the Agreement to Sell is not in dispute. Therefore, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act is not attracted in the case of the assessee. Similarly, assessee received an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of imprest. Confirmation is filed at page-36 of the paper book, in wh....