9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs received by the assessee from the company constitutes deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Context and Background: The assessee, an individual holding 40% equity in Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and serving as its Managing Director, filed a return of income for the assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed an additional income of Rs. 15 lakhs as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 2. Facts and Proceedings: The company received Rs. 39,67,620 from the Punjab Government as an interim measure against an arbitration award, which was subject to the final decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The AO treated the Rs. 15 lakhs loaned to the assessee from this amount as deemed dividend, arguing it was part of accumulated profits. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting the money was used by the assessee for personal purposes, free from encumbrances. 3. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that: - The amount released was conditional and subject to the High Court's final judgment. - The amount could not be considered as income since it was released against sureties. - The company did not possess accumulated profits as the amount was shown as a liability in its balance sheet. - The interim release of money did not constitute an execution of the award. 4. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argued: - The arbitration award related to the work executed by the company, thus forming part of the business receipts. - The amount should be considered as profits and not a liability. - The provisions of section 2(22)(e) create a deeming fiction, making the loan taxable as deemed dividend. 5. Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal emphasized the conditional nature of the amount released, noting it was subject to the final decision of the High Court. - Citing the Supreme Court's decision in P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar, it held that the release of money on furnishing security does not transfer title to the money. - The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., which held that money released subject to a dispute does not constitute income. - The Tribunal concluded that the company did not have an absolute right to the amount, and therefore, it could not be considered as accumulated profits. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 39,67,620 received by the company could not be considered as accumulated profits for the purposes of section 2(22)(e). Consequently, the Rs. 15 lakhs loaned to the assessee could not be treated as deemed dividend. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.
|
