In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (supra), the Hon’ble Court has held that ‘if there is no reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on new tangible material, then the reopening of assessment amounts to impermissible review’.
The assessee company is not the shareholder in M/s Precision Stock & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and received the amount from the said company in the course of ordinary business activities. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable.
The assessee submitted that he produced following evidences before the AO to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Vinod Kumar :- (i) Copy of Share Application received from Mr. Vinod Kumar (ii) Copy of Shares Certificate of shares Allotted to him (iii) Copy of confirmation received from him
Mere cash deposit in the bank account of the creditor cannot be said that the creditor has no creditworthiness. Then by disagreeing by the other decisions the Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the present case, not even a notice was issued by the Assessing Officer to the creditors to examine and verify the case of the assessee regarding creditworthiness and identity of the creditors.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received a loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash on 10.05.2009 thereby violating the provisions of section 269S of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271D of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2013 which was duly served on the assessee.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The Hon’ble Tribunal agreeing to the contentions of the assessee held that regarding GBR, payments made to them were only towards reimbursement of shipment charges and therefore, no tax was deducted at source. Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient
The Hon’ble Tribunal while relying on the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case which was having similar facts in which it was observed that the advance was treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because it was converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no money
The CIT(A) remanded the matter and according to the remand report cash deposits were not explainable as there was cash in hand. Also, it was came to known that Assessee maintained one more account in Vijaya Bank which was not shown to the Department. Regarding the rental receipts it was observed by the AO
Revenue submitted that there was no change of opinion as contended by assessee and accepted by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has not furnished ‘Project Completion Certificate’ nor furnished the complete details of AOP as pointed out by the AO. It was the submission that the original project has started way back in 1996 and therefore
