2014 (11) TMI 434 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) Amount received by assessee as loans to be treated as deemed dividend or not Held that - Assessee rightly contended that the payment made by a company, which is covered by the provisions of S.2(22)(e), can be treated as deemed dividend only to the extent to which such company possesses accumulated profits, and this position clearly evident from the provisions of S.2(22)(e) - the claim of the assessee that M/s. Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. did not possess any accumulated profits at the time of advancing the amount to the assessee has not been verified either by the AO or by the CIT(A) although such claim was specifically made in the submissions made before the AO and a specific ground to this effect was also raised by the assessee in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for verification of the claim of the assessee as regards non-availability of any accumulated profits in the case of M/s. Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of amount as deemed dividend Held that - Out of the total loan amount, a sum of ₹ 17 lakhs was received by the assessee and the addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) can be made in the case of the assessee only to the extent of ₹ 10 lakhs, being the amount received during the year thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification of claim of assessee Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of gross receipts relating to business of interior design works Held that - Assessee has not been able to rebut or controvert the findings of fact recorded by the AO as well as the CIT(A) to dispute the genuineness of his claim of having carried on the business of interior designing work - He has also not been able to produce any evidence whatsoever to establish that any such business was actually carried on by him or any of the expenditure claimed in relation to the said business was actually incurred by him thus, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the AO in treating the claim of the assessee of having carried on the business of interior designing work as bogus or false Decided against assessee. Reimbursement of conveyance expenses Held that - The assessee has submitted that the amount received by the assessee towards reimbursement of conveyance expenses actually incurred is exempt u/s 10(14)(i) - any special allowance or benefit not being in the nature of perquisite, specifically granted to meet expense wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for in the performance of the duty of an office or employment of profit, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose, is exempt from tax - There is no evidence brought on record by the assessee to show that any special allowance was specifically granted to the assessee by the employer to meet conveyance expense wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of his duty - There is also no evidence placed on record before us to show that the amount in question claimed to be received by the assessee on account of conveyance allowance was actually incurred for such purpose - In the absence of details and evidence, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted that the amount is exempt from tax u/s 10(14)(i) Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,29,22,613 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Rs. 27 lakhs as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of Rs. 39,50,000 relating to business income from interior design works.
4. Addition of Rs. 2,56,966 on account of reimbursement of conveyance expenses.
5. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 as unexplained cash credit.
6. Addition of Rs. 13,252 against medical insurance premium.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,29,22,613 as Deemed Dividend:
The assessee, an individual and Managing Director of M/s. Speed Projects & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., received loans amounting to Rs. 1,29,22,613 from the said company. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this amount as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act and added it to the assessee's total income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed this addition. However, the assessee contended that the company did not have accumulated profits at the time of advancing the loan. The Tribunal found that this claim was not verified by the AO or CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of the company's accumulated profits and to decide the issue afresh, allowing this ground for statistical purposes.

2. Addition of Rs. 27 Lakhs as Deemed Dividend:
The assessee received a loan of Rs. 27 lakhs from the same company, which the AO also treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee argued that Rs. 17 lakhs of this amount was received in earlier years, and only Rs. 10 lakhs was received in the year under consideration. The Tribunal found merit in the need for verification and remanded the issue back to the AO to verify the claim and decide afresh, allowing this ground for statistical purposes.

3. Addition of Rs. 39,50,000 Relating to Business Income from Interior Design Works:
The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 19,86,680 from the business of interior design works but showed gross receipts of Rs. 39,50,000. The AO found no evidence of any interior design work or related expenses and treated the entire amount as business income. The CIT(A) upheld this treatment, noting the lack of evidence and skills demonstrated by the assessee for such work. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the decision, rejecting the assessee's alternative contention to estimate income by applying a net profit rate.

4. Addition of Rs. 2,56,966 on Account of Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenses:
The assessee received Rs. 2,56,966 from M/s. Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. towards conveyance expenses, which was not offered to tax. The AO added this amount to the total income, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting the absence of evidence to show that the amount was specifically granted and actually incurred for conveyance expenses, rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(14)(i).

5. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The AO added Rs. 3,00,000 received from Mr. V. Agam Rao as unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed this was not a new credit and was shown in earlier years' balance sheets. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify this claim and make the addition only if it was a new credit. The Tribunal found no grievance for the assessee and directed the AO to follow the CIT(A)'s instructions.

6. Addition of Rs. 13,252 Against Medical Insurance Premium:
The AO disallowed Rs. 13,252 claimed as medical insurance premium without giving reasons. The assessee provided evidence, and the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and allow the claim as per law. The Tribunal upheld this direction, finding no grievance for the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with several issues remanded back to the AO for verification and fresh decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on the business income from interior design works and reimbursement of conveyance expenses. The directions given by the CIT(A) on unexplained cash credit and medical insurance premium were also upheld.

← Previous Next →