2016 (6) TMI 1475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of impugned addition of Rs. 9,61,421/- and Rs 35176/- made on account of alleged deemed dividend made by the AO in the respective years. 2. The ld. CIT(A) Central, Jaipur has erred in law and facts of the case in rejecting the bonafide explanation of the appellant whilst confirming the penalty inter alia for the following: (i) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the bona fide explanation and evidences on records which brings out the purpose and utilization of these funds for proposed township project and therefore is not justified In stating that the appellant has not provided any details. (ii) The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating the vital aspect tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....utset, the ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide its recent order dated 12.02.2016 in the under noted cases concerning the other group companies, in the identical set of facts, in exactly the same issue of penalty on deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), deleted the penalty by allowing the appeals. Name of assessee ITA No.  A.Y Trimurty Buildcon(P) Ltd. 661/JP/2011 662/JP/2011 663/JP/2011 664/JP/2011 665/JP/2011 468/JP/2011 2002-03 2003-04` 2004-05 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Geeta Mishra 667/JP/2011 2007-08 Abhishek Estate (p) Ltd. 668/JP/2011 2005-06 Trimurty Farms & Retreats vs. DCIT 666/JP/2011 2005-06 Further the ld. AR submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eturn u/s 153Aof the IT Act wherein also all the detailed facts and figures were disclosed in the return. The assessee's case is auditable. The assessee at the time of quantum addition as well as at the time of penalty proceedings has reiterated that these advances are in the course of regular business. It is a running account, said advances later on repaid. This issue is debatable and various courts particularly in the case of Creative Dyeing &Printing (P) Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held that business transaction is not covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Various other case laws cited by the assessee has also been made this issue debatable. The case relied on by the AO i.e Mak Data P. Ltd. is not applicable as assessee at every stage ha....