2018 (10) TMI 2003

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the same. Since common issues are involved, the same are being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we take up cross-appeals for AY 2009-10. Cross Appeals for AY 2009-10 2.1 The revenue has contested the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-52/IT/ACCC-6(4)/190/2015-16 dated 22/06/2016 by raising the following effective grounds of appeal: - (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,43,383/- u/s. 2(22) (e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts that Smt. Nirmala Thumar has held 10% of shares of M/s. Kalpana Struct. Con (P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icable to the facts of the case. The assessee defended the same by submitting that the stated advances were mere trade advances in nature towards purchase of land. However, after perusal of agreement between two entities, the Ld. AO, not convinced, added the same to the income of the assessee since other conditions as envisaged by Section 2(22)(e) were fulfilled. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22/06/2016 wherein the assessee reiterated the contentions as raised before Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that similar additions were made u/s 2(22)(2) in the hands of the firm but the same were deleted by first appellate authority since the transactions were found to be purely ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctual matrix being identical. Another reason to concur with the stand of the assessee is that the assessee herself has not received any amount from the Company rather the amount has been received by the firm, in which the assessee was a partner to the extent of 23%. Therefore, the basic condition of Section 2(22)(e) i.e. the assessee has received the amount from the concern, is missing in the case. On both counts, we confirm the stand of Ld. first appellate authority. The revenue's appeal stand dismissed. The assessee, in the cross objection, has contested the validity of reassessment proceedings. The same become merely academic in nature since we have already dismissed revenue's appeal and therefore dismissed as infructuous. Cross Appea....