2015 (12) TMI 1178 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on deemed dividend - Held that - The section clearly states that the shareholder may be a member of the concern or a partner, which implies that the interest of the shareholder in the concern is to be determined with reference to the percentage of shareholding of the directors/ partners in the said concern. It is not necessary that in every case the detailed mechanism should be provided for computing the income and, if, by reasonable construction of the section, the income can be deduced then merely on the ground that specific provision has not been provided, it cannot be held that the computation provisions fails. It is well settled law that the construction which advances the object of legislation should be made and not the one which defeats the same. The percentage of shareholding in the concern to which loan is given, is the determining factor of the deemed dividend in case of shareholder. In the present case, since in M/s Aesthete International Ltd., Mr. Puneet Bhagat had 53.85 shareholding. Therefore, ₹ 5,38,500/- should have been assessed as dividend in the hands of Shri Puneet Bhagat and ₹ 4,61,100/- should have been taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of Mrs. Suneeta Bhagat. Since in case of Mr. Puneet Bhagat, this will lead to enhancement of income, uphold the addition of ₹ 5 lakhs only in his case. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the loan received by a company from its sister concern should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of individual directors who are common shareholders.
2. Whether the absence of a specific computation mechanism in the Income Tax Act affects the addition of deemed dividend in the hands of shareholders.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeals were filed against orders relating to the assessment year 2007-08 by different assessees of the same group. The key issue was whether a loan received by M/s Aesthete International Ltd. from M/s Aesthete Exim Pvt. Ltd. should be considered deemed dividend in the hands of the individual directors, Shri Puneet Bhagat and Smt. Sunita Bhagat. The AO treated the loan as deemed dividend, which was then challenged by the assessees. The argument was based on the interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The AO divided the loan amount between the two directors equally, leading to additions in their respective incomes.

Issue 2:
The absence of a specific computation mechanism for deemed dividend in the hands of shareholders was a significant point of contention. The assessees argued that the Act did not provide a clear method for computing the deemed dividend when the loan was given to a concern in which the shareholder was a partner or member. The assessees relied on a judgment regarding the legislative intent and the necessity of a comprehensive computation provision. However, the Tribunal held that the absence of a detailed computation mechanism did not invalidate the application of the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the percentage of shareholding in the concern receiving the loan was crucial in determining the deemed dividend. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition of deemed dividend in the hands of the directors based on their respective shareholdings in the company.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed one appeal and partly allowed the other, emphasizing the importance of shareholding percentages in determining the deemed dividend for individual directors.