TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred to as 'Act'). 2. The penalty in the present case has been levied on the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of treating loans/advances received by him as deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. 3. Before us, the assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) both on merits and on legal grounds. The grounds of appeal read as under: "1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 5,83,282/-. 2. That the Worthy CIT(A) had failed to appreciate the fact that the complete particulars of income had been furnished and neither there has been conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the additional ground raised by way of ground No.4 is hereby admitted for adjudication. 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee first took up grounds on merits of the case raised in ground Nos.1, 2 & 3 above. The Ld. counsel for assessee first drew our attention to the facts relating to the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act on which penalty was levied. Drawing our attention to the assessment order in the present case, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the impugned addition was made, it was pointed out therefrom that the A.O. had noted that the assessee had a debit balance of Rs. 18,22,923/- in the books of M/s Chhabra Wines Ltd., a company in which the assessee was a Director holding 51.98% of shares. The A.O., therefore, fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Income Tax Officer Vs. Dr. Shamsheer, ITA N0.564/CHENNAI/2011 CHENNAI-TRIB 4. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd, 322 ITR 158(SC) 5. Brijesh Kumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer ITAN0.701/CHD/2017CHD-TRIB 6. Anil V. Mehta Vs. income Tax Officer, ITA No.1324/MUM/2013 MUM-TRIB 7. Shankar Lai Khandelwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No.878/JP/2013 JAIPUR-TRIB 8. Vikram P. Mahurkar V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No.3195/ADH/2014 AHD-TRIB 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. DR pointed out that during assessment proceedings and even in appellate proceedings the assessee had given an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of its business where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company. The assessee except pleading that advance against property is in the nature of commercial transaction has not pleaded before authorities below that lending of money is substantial part of the business of the company. 9. The ld. CIT(Appeals), on going through the Agreement to Sell in question specifically found that part of the amount is stated as advance and that assessee is 1/3rd owner of the property in question. However, in the Agreement to Sell, assessee claimed to be owner of the property in question. In the Agreement to Sell, it is stated that assessee shall receive the balance amount at the time of execution and registratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of certain conditions specified in the section ,one of them being the assessee having substantial interest in the company. 10. In the above factual matrix ,the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, has to be adjudicated by us. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had correctly disclosed all particulars relating to the deemed income. The assessee had shown the loan/advance as received from the company and the revenue had, accepting this fact and taking into consideration other factors, treated the same as deemed income of the assessee. So far as the bonafides of the assesses claim for not treating it as income for the purposes of taxation, we see no....