9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 378 - AT - Income TaxAddition - Deemed dividend U/s 2(22)(e) - it was held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) would be attracted if a loan was taken by the shareholder from a closely held company - Hence, the Hon ble Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Special Bench on the principle that the deemed dividend could not have been taxed in the hands of the assessee who is not the shareholder - Accordingly the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the amount brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm is correct on the principles of law - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 41(1) - Unexplain cash -assessee s contention that there were disputes between the assessee firm and the said company with reference to compensation payable for premature vacation of the premises. It is also assessee s submission that the above said deposit of Rs.1,82,80,880/- was written back and offered as income in A.Y. 2007-08 for which the assessee relied on the Balance and P and L Account of that year - The A.O. has given a finding that no such income was offered which was the basis for CIT(A) s also that the same was not written back - Held that the aspect has not been examined correctly and the assessee has no objection for setting aside it to the file of the A.O. for examination of the facts - The A.O. is directed to examine the facts afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee - Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, originally made under section 68. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue contested the addition of Rs. 36,11,523/- under section 2(22)(e), which was deleted by the CIT(A). The A.O. identified that the assessee had received Rs. 36,11,523/- from M/s. Fine Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern. The A.O. argued that since the partners of the assessee firm held substantial shares in the company, the amount should be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The assessee contended that it was not a registered shareholder in the company, referencing the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal, which specify that only registered shareholders can be taxed under this provision. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, citing the ITAT Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd., which held that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of the shareholder, not the non-shareholder concern. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A)'s interpretation would render section 2(22)(e) redundant, as it was intended to cover advances to concerns where shareholders have substantial interest. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Bombay High Court's approval in CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., which confirmed that deemed dividend should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder, not the concern. Thus, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. 2. Addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 1,82,08,880/- under section 41(1), initially made under section 68 by the A.O. The A.O. found an outstanding deposit from M/s. Concord Motors Ltd., which was not written back despite no recovery claim. The assessee explained that the deposit was related to a rental agreement and was written back in A.Y. 2007-08, offered to tax then. The A.O. rejected this explanation, treating the amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and also as a benefit under section 28(iv). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition under section 41(1), stating that section 68 was inapplicable since the amount was not credited during the year. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not properly examine whether the liability ceased to exist during the year or in A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee claimed disputes over compensation for premature vacation of the premises, and the amount was offered as income in A.Y. 2007-08. The Tribunal found that the A.O. and CIT(A) did not verify these claims accurately. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A), directing the A.O. to re-examine the facts, including yearly rents offered, the nature of disputes, and the timing of the liability cessation. The appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue regarding the addition under section 2(22)(e) was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The appeal by the assessee regarding the addition under section 41(1) was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded to the A.O. for fresh examination. The Tribunal emphasized the need for accurate verification of facts and adherence to legal principles in determining tax liabilities.
|
