TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed that at the relevant point of time, the MD of the company, who looks after the functions of accounting and financing, confined to bed due to ill health, hence, there was a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. It was further stated that the delay is due to health condition of the MD and is not an intentional and the situation is beyond the control of the assessee. 2.1 As the assessee was prevented by sufficient reason in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that M/s. Rajratna Energy Holdings Pvt Limited holds 100% shares of appellant company, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by it in the ordinary course of business as M/s. AIC Solar Project Pvt Limited is not in the business of money lending. 5. There has been actual transfer of money from Mis. AIC Solar Project Pvt Limited to the assessee company and such loan is not on account of mere book entries. 6. Since M/s. Rajratna Energy Holding Pvt Limited is a 100% holding company of the assessee company, hence any monies received by the assessee company, are received for the benefit of M/s. Rajratna Energy Holdings Pvt Limited, for all practical purposes." In view of the above, the Assessing Officer show-caused as to why the amount of Rs. 98,84,912/- received from M/s. AIC Solar Project Pvt. Limited should not be taxed as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e). In respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both on facts and in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances in the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition made in the assessment order particularly invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) for deeming an amount of Rs. 98,84,912/- as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company which is a non shareholder in the lending company. 3. The ought to have considered the fact that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable to a shareholder of the company and not to others who are not shareholders of the company advancing the loan amounts. 4. On the facts and circumstances in the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in bringing to tax during the present As....