TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 2025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 2(22)(e) while passing Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2011. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,19,78,500/- made by the AO as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act., without appreciating that all the conditions prescribed in the said section are fulfilled in the assessee's case? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the "loans" as. "advanced for commercial purpose", hence not covered under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. i.e. in terms of 2(22)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al expediency about lending of money. The assessee has prepared the agreement after raising the query by the Assessing Officer. There is no provision under section 2(22)(e) for end use of money. The ld. CIT(A) has not made appropriate enquiry before deleting the addition. It was duty of the ld. CIT(A) to make adequate and sufficient enquiry before deleting the addition in support of his submission, the addition in support of his submission, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Jansamparak Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. [375 ITR 373 (Delhi). 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Jain[2012]Taxman 44 (Delhi) (MAG). 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the material placed before us. The Assessing Officer during the assessment from the balance sheet of M/s. Nikita Developers, wherein assessee is proprietor, noted that Nitika Tower has shown a loan of Rs. 2,19,78,500/- from M/s Jalaram Polymer Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has substantial shareholding in M/s Jalaram Polymer Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the loan/advance of Rs. 2,19,78,500/- appearing in the balance sheet should not be treated as dividend income in the hand of assessee. The assessee filed its reply dated 05.12.2011. In the reply the assessee contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill that date. The ld CIT(A) again vide reminder dated 17.09.2012 directed the assessing officer to furnish the remand report within seven days, but, again the assessing officer failed to furnish his remand report within time fixed by ld CIT(A). However, on further reminder of the ld CIT(A), the assessing officer filed his remand report dated 01.03.2013. In the remand report the assessing officer contended that in the books of account of both the concern the amount has been shown "loan" and only when during the assessment the issue of deemed dividend was raised the assessee submitted copy of the agreement (joint Venture). The assessing officer also shown his reservation that the land for the development of which, the joint venture was prepa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y out the development activity in survey No. 414, CTS, No. 1208, Malad South, Boriwali. The assessing officer has not proved the fats otherwise. On the basis of his conclusion the ld CIT(A) held that such transaction is beyond the scope of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. We have seen the CBDT Circular No 19/2017 dated 12.07.2017, wherein it is clarified that the trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of word 'advance' in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is further clarified that appeals may not be filed by the officers of the department and appeal filed, in the Courts/ Tribunal may be withdrawn. As we have seen that the assessee has proved that has received the money for commercia....