DCIT v. Veena Goyal - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED ACIT v. Subhodh Menon & Anr. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0396 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Sudhir Menon HUF v. Asstt. Commissioner (Appeals) 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2080 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED H. Holck Larsen v. CIT 1972 TaxPub(DT) 0254 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT 1967 TaxPub(DT) 0251 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3870 (Jp-Trib) : (2021) 186 ITD 0298 IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH RAMESH C SHARMA, A.M. & SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. DCIT v. Veena Goyal ITA Nos. 75 & 76/JP/2020 15 September, 2020 Against Revenue. Assessee by: Manish Tantiwala (CA) Revenue by: Runi Paul (Addl. Commissioner--Departmental Representative) ORDER *R.C. Sharma, A.M.* These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur, dated 19-11-2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 in the matter of order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 2. Common grounds have been taken by the revenue in both these appeals and both the assessees are related persons, therefore both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 4. Firstly, we take ITA No. 75/JP/2020. In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved for deleting the addition of Rs. 50.00 lacs made by the assessing officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Act for deemed dividend. 5. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee who is a Share Holder in M/s. Pinkcity Jewelhouse (P) Ltd. having more than 10% voting power had applied for allotment of shares of the Company Pinkcity jewel House (P) Ltd. The assessee accepted the offer and applied for allotment of 11,20,000 shares and paid the value of shares amounting to Rs. 1,12,00,000 through various cheques. The cheque was handed over to the company along with share applications. The assessee was also having a running account in the company in which he had a credit balance. The Company allotted the shares without presenting the cheque for clearance before allotment and made credit entry for these cheques in her ledger account as well as debited the value of shares to her running account and therefore her account never represented a debit balance. However, two Cheque of Rs. 35,00,000 each which were credited in the books on 1-2-2013 & 2-2-2013 but the cheques was presented by the company after some time but during the current financial year, in the books of the assessee there was a credit balance of Rs. 20,00,000 on 4-2-2013 even after debit of Rs. 70 Lacs for Share Application money but the learned ACIT has treated the same as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act and made the addition. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3870 (Jp-Trib) : (2021) 186 ITD 0298

IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH

RAMESH C SHARMA, A.M. & SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.

DCIT v. Veena Goyal

ITA Nos. 75 & 76/JP/2020

15 September, 2020

Against Revenue.

Assessee by: Manish Tantiwala (CA)

Revenue by: Runi Paul (Addl. Commissioner--Departmental Representative)

ORDER

R.C. Sharma, A.M.

These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur, dated 19-11-2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 in the matter of order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2. Common grounds have been taken by the revenue in both these appeals and both the assessees are related persons, therefore both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.

3. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.

4. Firstly, we take ITA No. 75/JP/2020. In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved for deleting the addition of Rs. 50.00 lacs made by the assessing officer under section 2(22)(e) of the Act for deemed dividend.

5. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee who is a Share Holder in M/s. Pinkcity Jewelhouse (P) Ltd. having more than 10% voting power had applied for allotment of shares of the Company Pinkcity jewel House (P) Ltd. The assessee accepted the offer and applied for allotment of 11,20,000 shares and paid the value of shares amounting to Rs. 1,12,00,000 through various cheques. The cheque was handed over to the company along with share applications. The assessee was also having a running account in the company in which he had a credit balance. The Company allotted the shares without presenting the cheque for clearance before allotment and made credit entry for these cheques in her ledger account as well as debited the value of shares to her running account and therefore her account never represented a debit balance. However, two Cheque of Rs. 35,00,000 each which were credited in the books on 1-2-2013 & 2-2-2013 but the cheques was presented by the company after some time but during the current financial year, in the books of the assessee there was a credit balance of Rs. 20,00,000 on 4-2-2013 even after debit of Rs. 70 Lacs for Share Application money but the learned ACIT has treated the same as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act and made the addition.