TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said notice the return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 54,83,75,670/- on 23.08.2015. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 8,32,29,600/- under the head 'loans and advances' under unsecured loans and the assessee was required to show cause as to why the said amount should not be included in the income of the assessee as deemed income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act for the reason that the said loan/advance had been received from a company M/s Emirates Technologies Ltd. in which 25% of shareholding each was held by Shri Sameer Gupta and Shri Sandeep Gupta who also held 20.8% shareholding each in the assessee company. The Assessing Officer proceeded to add this amount to the income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer also required the assessee to provide details along with confirmation of parties from whom purchases above Rs. 10 lacs had been made during the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer also issued notices to some of the parties and thereafter, proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 41,97,754/- on account of bogus purchases alleged to have been from a party M/s New ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest of beneficial owners of the shares. The Ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Travel Service v. CIT (2018) 401 ITR 154/162 DTR 201 (SC), for the proposition that the moment there is a shareholder, who need not necessarily be a member of the Company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the section would be attracted without anything more. 3.1 On the issue of addition on account of bogus purchase, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer had made inquiry in respect of purchases by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and since no reply had been received from some of the parties, the assessee was asked to produce these parties. However, in the case of M/s New Jain Spares no reply had been received and the Assessing Officer had directed the assessee to produce the party but since the assessee failed to comply, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the said purchase as bogus and added the same to the total income of the assessee. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had given relief to the assessee after admitting some new evidence with which the Assessing Officer was not confro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issions and we have also perused the material on record. As far as the issue of disallowance u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act by treating the amount of Rs. 8,32,29,000/- as deemed dividend is concerned, the Ld. CIT-DR had made vehement arguments against the deletion by the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Travel Service vs. CIT (supra) wherein it has been observed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ankitech (P.) Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) was not a correct interpretation of law. It is the contention of the Department that it is not necessary that the person advancing the loan should be a shareholder and even beneficial ownership/shareholding would attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Travel Service vs. CIT (supra) and specially paragraph -19 of the said judgment, which is, the concluding paragraph, in which the Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under: "19. This being the case, we are prima facie of the view that the Ankitech judgment (supra) itself requires to be reconsidered, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of addition of Rs. 41,97,754/- on account of bogus purchases, we note that in para 4.7 of his order, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the Assessing Officer had made a similar addition in Assessment Year, 2011-12, 2012-13 as well as in Assessment Year 2014-15 on account of purchases from M/s New Jain Spares and while deleting the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the findings recorded by him for the said earlier years. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given a detailed finding on the issue in the impugned assessment year. However, we have gone through the copies of documents submitted by the assessee on the issue during the course of assessment proceedings which include copies of purchase invoices, evidences of payments of these purchases having been made through banking channels, reconciliation with VAT returns and books of accounts and the purchases being reconciled with quantitative details. It is also undisputed that the assessee had been making purchases from this party on a regular basis. The sole basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance was that the assessee had failed to produce the said party when called upon by the Assessing Officer to do so. However, w....