TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts as culled out from the material on record are as under:- Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of cotton ginning, pressing and manufacturing. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 06.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 17,16,595/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.02.02.16 and the total income was determined at Rs. 2,37,76,474/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.21.11.2016 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/729/2015-16) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s u/s 2(22)( e). 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO erred in making addition of Rs. 2,20,44,732/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act being loan received from Mahesh Ginning Pvt Ltd without appreciating that the loan was given on the grounds of commercial expediency and the entire loan was returned during the year and there was no evasion of tax and hence the addition ought to be deleted." 4. Before us, Ld.A.R. at the outset, submitted that there is delay of 29 days in filing the C.O. He also placed the sworn affidavit of Mr. Gopal Hajarimal Tayal, Partner of the firm stating the reasons for the delay and in view of the reasons stated in the affidavit he prayed that the delay in filing the C.O be condoned. Ld.D.R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unded off). He therefore, by applying the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act, made addition of Rs. 2,20,44,732/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and after following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Private Limited reported in (2010) 324 ITR 263 deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under : "4.4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and the order of the Assessing Officer. The appellant is a firm. It is a settled law that the partnership firm is not a legal person. Hence the partnership firm holds share in the na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B) and the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd., has dealt with the similar issue and has held that "the deemed dividend can only be taxed in the hands of a person who is not only a beneficial shareholder, but also a registered shareholder. The said decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT has been followed by the jurisdictional ITAT Pune Bench in ITA No. 728/PN/2008 A. Y. 2005-06 vide an order dated 31/0312009 in the case of M/s. Shivananda Electronics Vs. JCIT. The ratio of the two decisions squarely apply to the identical facts of the case of the appellant. Further, the above proposition of law is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Med....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee firm is not a share-holder and therefore the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable and for the aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Skyline Great Hills reported in (2016) 238 Taxmann.com 675. He also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decision. He thus supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He thereafter submitted that if the grounds of Revenue are dismissed then the C.O. of the assessee would become academic and would therefore require no adjudication. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had ....