2019 (6) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal, the assessee has filed the condonation petition with affidavit. We, considering the submissions of the learned AR and the condonation petition, are of the opinion that the delay is supported with reasonable cause and the delay is condoned for which the learned DR has no serious objection. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The ld.AR has argued only two disputed issues (a) addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and (b) addition of unexplained credit in capital account. The ld.AR has not prosecuted the other grounds of appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is having income from salary and income from other sources and filed the Return of income on 15/07/2009 with total income ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whereas the CIT(A) considered the facts and the grounds of appeal and the finding of the AO, but confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee's appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal with the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and whereas the assessee has to pay tax on deemed dividend of Rs. 12,87,990/- instead of Rs. 38,94,752/-. In the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has suffered tax on deemed dividend income of Rs. 30,41,163/-. In the present assessment year, considering the reserves and surplus of the company in the previous year and deemed dividend subject to tax in the assessment year 2008-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the case of M/s.Aswani Enterprises vs. ACIT in Tax Case Appeal Nos.1111 and 1112 of 2008 dated 25/09/2018 and the observations of the Hon'ble High Court at para.33 which reads as under: "33. As regards the assessment year 1999-2000, it held that it did not agree with the view taken by the CIT (A) that the deemed dividend for the assessment year 1998-2000 should not be adjusted from the balance of accumulated profit as on the close of the assessment year 199899. After referring to the decision in the case of G.Narasimhan, it was further pointed out that there was no ambiguity in that regard. Hence, for the assessment year 1999-2000, the Assessing Officer was directed to compute the deemed dividend equivalent to the amount advan....