AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073230960(1) dated 13.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly procee ded ex-parte.
The assessee ple ads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“i)That the ld. CIT(A) has e rred in facts and in law in confirming the additio n of Rs.5,57,96,604/- under the provisio ns o f section 2(22)(e) and further enhancing the addition by Rs.9,85,07,883/- to Rs.15,43,04,487/-. T hat the addition be ing contrary to pr ovisions of law be delete d.
ii) That it may be held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have bee n wro ngly applie d as the assessee does not ho ld 10% shares or more in the company giving the loan and the additio n of Rs.15,43,04,487/- being unwarranted and unjustified be dele ted.”
Learned CIT-DR vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly invoked section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition in the assessee’s case involving the sum in question of Rs.5,57,96,604/- in their respective findings. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that this assessee and M/s Mohan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. have co mmon share holders Sh. Mohand Puri and Smt. Neeru Puri than the appellant itse lf having a stake therein; as the case may be .
Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee does not satisfy the statutory criter ia of be ing a registered or a beneficial shareholder u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, we hereby quo te ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Color Labs Pvt. Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB) and CIT Vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2011) 340 ITR 14 (Del.) to conclude that the impugned dividend addition is not sustainable in it’s hands. The same stands de leted in very terms therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.