2013 (8) TMI 514 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - A.O. made addition on account of debit balance of account - Held that - there was opening credit balance, then debit balance occurred due to certain payments made by M/s Daisy Motors Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee in the month of April and July. Thereafter, from July 2005 to 22nd March, 2006, there was a credit balance and again on 30th March, 2006, there was a debit balance - From the copy of account, it is evident that the assessee also made purchase of ten vehicles. Thus, the account is clearly in the nature of a running current account and merely because for a few days there was a debit balance of it cannot be said that such debit balance was either loan or advance by M/s Daisy Motors Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee - Following decision of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P.Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT and CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels P.Ltd. 2008 (4) TMI 428 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of Assessee. Unexplained expenditure - Household expenses - Held that - considering the size of the assessee s family and the status of the assessee, the estimate of household expenditure of ₹ 30,000/- per month is quite fair and reasonable - while considering the household expenditure, withdrawal by the assessee s wife should also have been considered - Addition on account of unexplained expenditure reduced - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition for unexplained expenditure on account of household expenses.
3. Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e)
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 2,08,212 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The appellant argued that the amount in question was part of a running current account with M/s Daisy Motors Pvt. Ltd. and not a loan or advance. The appellant relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court to support their contention. The Departmental Representative (DR) maintained that the debit balance should be treated as deemed dividend due to the substantial shareholding of the appellant in the company. The ITAT analyzed the account details and concluded that the nature of the account was a running current account, not a loan or advance. Citing previous court decisions, the ITAT held that the debit balance did not qualify as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and deleted the addition.

Issue 2: Unexplained expenditure on household expenses
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 83,510 for unexplained household expenses. The Assessing Officer estimated the household expenditure at Rs. 30,000 per month, leading to the addition. The appellant argued that the disclosed expenditure was reasonable and fair, supported by evidence of withdrawals. The DR defended the estimation based on the family size and status of the appellant. The ITAT found the estimation reasonable but noted that the withdrawal by the appellant's wife was not considered in the addition. Consequently, the ITAT reduced the addition by Rs. 35,000 and sustained it at Rs. 48,510.

Issue 3: Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision
The appellant raised a ground challenging the CIT (Appeals) decision for lack of proper opportunity and mechanical upholding of the assessment order. During the hearing, the appellant did not pursue this ground, leading to its rejection.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appellant's appeal, deleting the addition of deemed dividend and adjusting the unexplained household expenses addition. The challenge against the CIT (Appeals) decision was rejected.