TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as CIT (A)} is bad in law. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law as the same has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) and computing income on estimated basis @ 20% of Rs. 5,45,77,817/- which was worked out at Rs. 1,09,57,082/- (Rs. 1,09,15,563/- + Rs. 41,519/-) and further rejecting the payment of Rent of Rs. 2,23,71,018/- by holding that there is no need for payment of rent in the business module of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Notice has not been served upon the assessee. The postal authorities returned the notice with the remark 'left'. Since the assesee is not traceable, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte after hearing the Ld. DR who is present. 4. Ground 1 and 2 are general in nature. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and computing income on estimated basis @ 20% of Rs. 5,45,77,817/- which was worked out at Rs. 1,09,57,082/- (Rs. 1,09,15,563 + Rs. 41,519/-) and further rejecting the payment of rent of Rs. 2,23,71,018/-. Briefly stated, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing business centre facilities and maintenance of immovable properties i.e. to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there was no need for the assessee to pay any rent. He also observed that despite specific query, no details of TDS effected on the said payment were submitted except making a bald statement in the grounds of appeal that the reasons for payment of rent, TDS returns and details already filed have not been appreciated. No evidence at all in support has been submitted either before the Ld. CIT(A) or before us. Therefore, no interference is called for. Ground No. 3 is rejected. 6. Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 92,42,739/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. AO has discussed this issue in para 4.2 of his order. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO sought clarification from the assessee on applicability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese amounts were paid by Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. for incurring expenses since the assessee company is looking after the maintenance of Building Universal Trade tower which was constructed by universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. So, looking to the losses suffered by the assessee company and urgency of business this amount was paid to the assessee company. The argument of the appellant found not acceptable by the AO. 4.2 Considering the above facts, I find that in the instant case the shareholders of the assessee company Sh. Raman Puri, Vikram Puri and Sh. Varun Puri who are also the shareholders of the Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd holding around 85% of shares of the said company. These persons are also the directors of both the companies. ....