RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals by the assessee, which pertains to assessment years 2000 -01, 2002 -03 and 2004 -05 impugn order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short). The three authorities including the Tribunal have given concurrent finding that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were attracted on the loans of Rs. 7,91,000/ - , Rs. 7,82,100/ - and Rs. 14,50,000/ - advanced in AYs 2000 -01, 2002 -03 and 2004 -05 respectively by A M Overseas Pvt. Ltd. to sole proprietorship of the assessee, Asha Ram Mukand Lal and A M Exports. It is not in dispute that the appellant -assessee had 20.56% shareholding in A M Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The appellant -assessee had before the Tribunal for the first time raised a contention relying upon Clause (ii) to Section 2(22)(e) and had submitted that the advance or loan given to the shareholder was in normal course of business, where lending of money was substantial part of business of the company. The Tribunal has rejected the said contention in view of the factual matrix noticed by them, which reads as under :

(2.) IN view of the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.