TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue is, whether or not the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,89,21,986, made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee firm under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 3. Brief facts are, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of chemicals and drugs and intermediates. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2015 declaring total income of Rs. 26,55,170. The Assessing Officer from the material available before him observed that the assessee has borrowed loans from private limited companies wherein common shareholders held over 10% of the voting rights. The amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im, also relied upon various other judicial pronouncements and made similar arguments. The Assessing Officer after considering detailed submissions of the assessee made disallowance for the reason that the assessee firm having received an advance in whatever form, the same falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. He observed that the assessee's contention that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not application to trade advances, the same was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer for the reason that the language used in this section refers to "any payment by a company by way of advance or loan" and the assessee firm having received an advance in whatever form the same falls within the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the assessee has been scrutinized every year and never prior to A Y 2010-11 the issue was raised by the AO ever. The facts and circumstances were same and they were accepted by the department. What changed after AY 2010-11/s that, the AO could make big additions as they were made the earlier year. No AO applied his mind for understanding the facts of the case nor how the law interpreted the sec. 2(22)(e)." 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Act by following the decision of his predecessor-in-office who previously allowed the assessee's claim in assessee's own case as well following the order of the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d shareholder in lending company, once payment is received by HUF and Karta, who is shareholder in lending company, has substantial interest in HUF, payment made to HUF shall constitute deemed dividend in HUF's hand as per Explanation 3 to section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 9. Considering the submissions the learned Departmental Representative and on a perusal of the material on record in the light of the decisions relied upon, we find that the issue on applicability of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in preceding assessment year 2019-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein the Bench in Revenue's....