2025 (10) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Year 2000-01. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal. "1) That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-52 [hereinafter referred to "CIT(A)"], is bad in law and on the facts of the case. 2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act")as the employer company affected the payment of Rs. 23,21,000/- (comprising of Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 23,00,000/- & Rs. 15,000/-) against the sum of Rs. 32,92,500/- credited to the account of the assessee towards salary payable. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as there was no clear advance and the payments were affected against the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions:   Income from salary Rs. 1,6032,600   Income From other Sources   (i) Deemed Income Rs. 1,20,03,200/- (ii) Income from household withdrawal Rs. 7,00,000/- (iii) Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C Rs. 5,34,738/- (iv) Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 Rs. 21,62,282/-   Total Rs. 3,14,32,820/- 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the same in liminivide order dated 11.12.2003. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 11.05.2007 of the coordinate bench, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes and CIT(A) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was a debit balance of Rs. 32,92,000/- at close of the year. He held that since assessee is a person with a beneficial ownership of shareholding of the company, with not less than 10% of the voting power, any sum given by way of advance or loan will amount to deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Since as on 31.03.1999, the company had accumulated profit of Rs. 52,89,920/- & accumulated profit as on 31.03.2000 in not known as the company did not file its return, the amount of Rs. 1,20,03,200/- was added to the assessee's income as deemed dividend after invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6.1. After considering the assessee's submissions Ld. CIT(A) finally upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 23,21,000/- a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee have been placed on record to show that salary income of Rs. 57,60,000 has been received by the assessee from the company during the year. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no addition on account of Rs. 23,21,000/- received on account of salary payable is called for u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act by treating the amount as deemed dividend. 7. Ground No. 4&5: Addition of Rs. 18,75,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Brief facts in this regard are that there was an entry of Rs. 18,75,000/- received through cheque in assessee's bank account. As the assessee did not furnish details regarding the swore of this entry, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained and made addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 7.1. The assessee submitted befor....