9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 43,40,000 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 43,40,000 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e): The assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting, and trading of readymade garments, filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 6,90,990. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 65,14,062 from M/s. Saemah Fashion Export (P.) Ltd., in which the assessee held more than 10% shares. The AO observed an opening balance of Rs. 41,17,621 as on 1-4-2003, which increased by an additional loan of Rs. 42,85,000 up to 5-12-2003, with a repayment of Rs. 40,000 in December 2003 and a fresh loan of Rs. 95,000, making the peak loan amount Rs. 43,40,000. The AO treated this amount as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) due to the substantial reserves and surplus available in M/s. Saemah Fashion Export (P.) Ltd.'s balance sheet and added it to the total income of the assessee. The assessee appealed against this order, arguing that the amount was taken as a deposit against job work and adjusted in subsequent years, thus being a business transaction outside the purview of section 2(22)(e). The assessee cited several judicial precedents, including the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in N.H. Securities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, the Chandigarh Bench of ITAT in Dy. CIT v. Lakra Bros., and the Delhi Bench of ITAT in Ardee Finvest (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, to support their claim. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] rejected the assessee's arguments, noting the contradictory nature of the assessee's statements and the classification of the amount as a loan in the assessee's books. CIT(A) emphasized that section 2(22)(e) clearly covers any payment by a company as an advance or loan to a shareholder holding not less than 10% of voting power, or to any concern in which such shareholder has a substantial interest, to the extent of accumulated profits. The CIT(A) found that the judgments cited by the assessee were distinguishable on facts and upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 43,40,000 as deemed dividend. The Tribunal, upon hearing the arguments and reviewing the material, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention that the amount was outside the purview of section 2(22)(e), noting the lack of any nexus between the amounts received and the job work or letting out of premises. The Tribunal observed that the amounts were treated as loans in the assessee's books, and the subsequent adjustment against job work was done by journal entry only on 31-3-2005, with no prior understanding of such adjustment. The Tribunal also rejected the argument of the transactions being on a running account, noting the substantial amount of loan outstanding for more than nine months. The Tribunal distinguished the cited judicial precedents on facts, emphasizing that the amount in question was a loan and not a business transaction or current account. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 43,40,000 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
|
