The Assessee was a significant shareholder in a company – The company sold building to shareholder on credit – Department treated it as ‘loan’ or ‘advance’ for invoking Section 2(22)(e). CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that since the unpaid purchase price has not been paid
he assessee claimed that the assessee borrowed unsecured loan @ 18% from related as well as unrelated parties. Therefore, the rate of 18% cannot be said to be excessive. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Balkrishna Goyal vs. DCIT, I.T.A.No. 590/Ind/2009
The facts, in brief, are that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. As per the Revenue, an amount of Rs. 20 lacs was accepted as undisclosed income by the assessee on account of shortage of gold ornaments weighing 758.475 gms and excess stock of silver at 91.134 kms.
Deemed dividend (to extent of accumulated profit) includes, Any payment by way of loan or advance by a closely-held company to a shareholder holding substantial interest. Such deemded dividend is treated as Income From Other Sources (IFOS) in the hand of such shareholder.
The facts, in brief, are that during the year the assessee sold a shop for Rs.18 lacs on 17.1.2005 and declared sale price while working out the capital gain and investment in construction of a residential house.
On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that theory of gift was having a fundamental flaw in so far as there was absolutely no explanation as to why the alleged donor has given gift to the assessee.
We found that assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of B.D. Leasing and Finance Limited, (2013) 49(II) ITCL 148, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271B for non-filing of tax audit report cannot be levied in view of the CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10.10.2006, which provided that in case of electronic filing of return, tax audit report need not to be filed alongwith return.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Limited, I.T.A.No. 240/2009 vide its order dated 5.10.2010 has clearly held that where High Court has accepted substantial question of law u/s 260A, this itself shows that issue is debatable. Accordingly, no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
In the appeal of the revenue by ground no. 2, the department has challenged the conclusion of the learned CIT(A) regarding deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for bad and doubtful debts written off restricted to the amount in excess of the provision for bad and doubtful debts created in the books of accounts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act or it is restricted to the excess of the amount of provision claimed in the return.
