9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1009 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s Sec.2(22)(e) - BAPL gave money to the Assessee and was of the view that the same was Loan or Advance within the meaning of Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act by a company (BAPL) to a person who holds substantial interest in the company (BAPL) and had to be brought to tax as deemed dividend to the extent the company possesses accumulated profits - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In the present case the transactions in question does not benefit the shareholder i.e., the Assessee alone and the results in no benefit to the Company BAPL. The loan account is different from a current account with a shareholder and the transactions between the Assessee and BAPL are in the nature of current account and provisions of Sec.2(22)(e ) of the Act will not be applicable to the case of the Assessee. We therefore concur with the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Nature of transactions between the Assessee and BAPL: Loan account vs. Current and Mutual account. 3. Determination of accumulated profits for taxation under deemed dividend. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Assessee, holding 25.24% shares in BAPL, had transactions with BAPL, which the AO treated as "Loan or Advance" under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This section deems any payment by a company to a substantial shareholder as a dividend if it possesses accumulated profits, aiming to prevent tax evasion by distributing profits as loans or advances instead of dividends. The AO quantified the transactions at Rs. 15,76,77,411/- but restricted the addition to Rs. 3,10,83,635/- based on BAPL's accumulated profits. 2. Nature of Transactions Between the Assessee and BAPL: Loan Account vs. Current and Mutual Account: The Assessee argued that the transactions were part of a current and mutual account, not a loan account. A current or mutual account involves independent transactions creating reciprocal obligations, unlike a loan account where repayments are directly linked to the loans. The Assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kesari Chand Jaisukh Lal vs. Shillong Banking Corporation Ltd., emphasizing that mutual accounts involve shifting balances and independent obligations. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting that the transactions had the characteristics of a mutual account, with frequent reciprocal transactions and shifting balances, and thus could not be treated as loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e). 3. Determination of Accumulated Profits for Taxation Under Deemed Dividend: The AO's addition was based on the accumulated profits of BAPL, quantified at Rs. 3,10,83,635/-. However, since the CIT(A) concluded that the transactions were part of a mutual account, the question of accumulated profits became irrelevant. The CIT(A) thus deleted the addition, stating that the deeming provision of Section 2(22)(e) should be construed strictly and does not extend to mutual and current transactions. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the transactions between the Assessee and BAPL were mutual and current in nature, not loans or advances. The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT, which held that Section 2(22)(e) covers only gratuitous loans or advances benefiting the shareholder alone, not mutual transactions benefiting both parties. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable in this case. Order Pronounced: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2015.
|
