| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2736 (Hyd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 2(22)(e)
Where CIT(A) did not examine the business exigency or the purpose for which the assessee had received the advance from the private limited company, but, had given a finding that amount was liable to tax under section 2(22)(e), since the evidence filed by assessee before Tribunal was additional evidence and the said additional evidence was not filed before authorities, due to which, there was no occasion to examine the same by AO and CIT(A), therefore matter was remanded back to AO with a direction to examine the business exigency of advances received by assessee.
|
Dividend - Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Amount received from sale of property to a company in which assessee was a manager -
Assessee had made cash deposits into her bank accounts and when assessee was asked to explain the source of the deposits, assessee replied that it was the advance received towards the proposed sale of property. Assessee failed to file necessary details and AO treated the same as unexplained money and brought it to tax under section 69A. Assessee before CIT(A) stated that she had proposed to sell the property to SPRIIL and had received the money which was deposited in her bank accounts. She also claimed that due to paucity of time, she could not submit this information before AO. Since this constituted additional information under rule 46A, CIT(A) called for remand report from AO. Assessee reiterated her submissions and after considering the same, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 69A and also mentioned that in alternative even if sources were held to be from SPRIIL, the amount was liable to be taxed under section 2(22)(e). Held: Assessee had stated that she was Managing Director of the SPRIIL and that advance was received for purchase of plot by the said company from 0assessee and, therefore, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. CIT(A), thereafter, did not examine the business exigency or the purpose for which the assessee has received the advance from SPRIIL, but, had given a finding that amount was liable to tax under section 2(22)(e). Since the evidence filed by assessee before Tribunal was additional evidence and was not filed before the authorities, due to which, there was no occasion to examine the same by AO and CIT(A), therefore matter was remanded back to AO with a direction to examine the business exigency of advances received by assessee.
Applied:Smt. N. Padmaja v. Dy. CIT [M.A. No. 12/Hyd/2018 (in ITA No. 646/Hyd/2016 And M.A. No. 13/Hyd/2018 (in ITA No. 648/Hyd/2016, dt. 16-3-2018] Dy. CIT v. Smt. N. Padmaja [MA Nos.70 & 71/Hyd/2017 (Arising out of ITA Nos.648 & 646/Hyd/2016), dt. 10-1-2018]
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|