Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon- Vs. The ITO, TDS Ward, Gurgaon.
May, 25th 2020
Both appeals filed by assessee are against order of CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 01.04.2015 & 07.04.2015 relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) and 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) respectively. ITA Nos.3994 & 3995/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2011-12
ITA No.3994/Del/2015 [Assessment Year 2011-12] 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the impugned order is bad in law as well as on merits. 2. That the impugned order and proceedings is without jurisdiction. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of documents and explanation filed, the liability for TDS of Rs.1,01,489/- on deemed dividend u//s 2(22)(e) for Rs.10,14,893/- and sustained by Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in law as well as on merits.
4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no demand u/s201 should have been created in view of demand created by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Gurgaon in case of Surbhi Jain.
5. That no interest 201(1A) should have been levied, without prejudice, the interest charged is excessive.”
3. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee company had advance Rs.70 lakhs to its associated concerns namely Arihant Agency which was treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits (Rs.10,14,893/-), as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee had not deducted tax at source on deemed dividend of Rs.10,14,893/- and Assessing Officer held the assessee to be in default u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act and raised demand of Rs.1,46,149/-. The CIT(A) upheld the said order of the AO against which the assessee is in appeal before us.