TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interests of the appellant and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.65,33,398/- as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e). 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and this payment is not reflected in the current account of the assessee with the company. Therefore, the said payment has been treated as deemed dividend. To sum up, the Assessing Officer has treated a sum of Rs. 65,33,398/- as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but could not succeed. The ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 17.11.2021, and also by following certain judicial precedents sustained additions made towards deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther submitted that the Assessing Officer had also considered debit balance of Rs. 35,13,267/- on 05.01.2011. The said amount arise because of payment of Rs. 40 lakhs received by the appellant from Mr. B.V. Sundararajan, who was the debtor of the company. The debtor has made the payment to the appellant instead of making payment to the company. The appellant transferred this amount to the company on 07.01.2011 i.e, 3 days after he received the amount. Therefore, said debit balance cannot be considered as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, had also considered an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- received by the appellant from company on 31.12.2010, on the ground that the said payment is not reflected in the current acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany possess accumulated profits. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant is a shareholder holding more than 10% voting power in the company and also the company is having accumulated profit, which attracted provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. But dispute is with regard to the nature of transactions between appellant and company. According to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, all transactions between the appellant and the company are normal current account in the ordinary course of business, which is evident from the ledger account of the assessee with the company, where various payments have been routed through the current account of the assessee. 8. We find that, it is not a solitary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(e) of the Act and this principle is supported by the decision of ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of M/s. V. Sriram (HUF) vs ACIT (OSD) (Supra). Similarly, the Assessing Officer has considered the payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- on 31.12.2010 and according to the Assessing Officer the appellant has received a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- from the company, but said payment is not reflected in the current account of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that, the company has owed to Smt. Sundaravalli, mother of the appellant and her account shows a credit balance of Rs. 35,25,000/-. The company suppose to make payment to Smt. Sundaravalli and as per the instructions of the payee, the amount has been paid to the appellant on 31.12.201....