Krishan Kant Kohli Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that amount withdrawn by the assessee in the capacity of the partner from the partnership firm cannot be treated in the nature of loan and advance and cannot be covered within meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- A search was conducted on 29/04/2015 at the various premises for Orient Craft group of cases. The Assessee was also covered u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act came to be passed on 26/12/2017 by making addition of Rs. 6,60,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) of the Act.
CIT(A) vide order dated 28/07/2018,dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee vide common order along with two more Assessees i.e. Sh. Sudhir Dhingra and Sh. Anoop Thatai. The Ld. CIT(A) has also passed common order for Assessment Year 2015-16 pertaining to Assessee and very same two more Assesses i.e. Sh. Sudhir Dhingra and Sh. Anoop Thatai, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the Appeal of the Assessees which has been challenged by the Department of Revenue in their Appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16.
Conclusion- Order of the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2015-16 in the case of Sudhir Dhingra has concluded that there is no question of treating the amount withdrawn by the assessee as partner from the partnership firm namely M/s SKA Enterprises in the nature of loan and advance and treat it as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. None of the ingredients of section 2(22)(e) stand satisfied in the instant case.
