2011 (11) TMI 232 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of invoking provisions of 2(22)(e) - Deemed Dividend assessee company receiving unsecured loan from sister concern having one commom shareholder holding substantial interest in both companies Held that - Division Bench of Court in case of CIT v. Ankitech (P.) Ltd (2011 - TMI - 206078 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that an assessee who was not a shareholder of the company from which it received a loan or an advance cannot be treated as covered by the definition of the word dividend as contained in sec.2(22)(e) of the Act. In the present case assessee-company is not a shareholder in sister concern therefore the aforesaid judgment fully applies to the present case. - Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of addition under section 2(22)(e) made by Assessing Officer.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved the question of whether the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer when the director of the company held more than 20% share in both the donor and donee companies. The Assessing Officer had made an addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, treating a sum received by the assessee as an unsecured loan from another sister-concern as deemed dividend. The CIT(A) held that since the assessee-company did not hold any shares in the sister-concern, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted. The Tribunal, following the order of a Special Bench, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the addition for deemed dividend can only be made in the hands of the shareholder of the company from whom the loan was received.

Issue 2 - Deletion of addition under section 2(22)(e) made by Assessing Officer:
The Revenue appealed before the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal based on the Special Bench's ruling. The matter was further analyzed in light of a Division Bench judgment, which clarified the intention behind enacting section 2(22)(e) to tax dividend in the hands of shareholders. The judgment emphasized that a company is supposed to distribute profits as dividend to its shareholders, and loans or advances given to non-shareholders do not qualify as dividend unless specified under section 2(22)(e). Since the assessee-company was not a shareholder in the sister-concern, the loan received did not fall under the definition of dividend as per the legal provisions.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal based on the Division Bench's judgment, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.