2018 (2) TMI 1981 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend income u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT - The purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is to tax the benefit extended by private limited company to its shareholders holding shares not less than 10% as beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend income). There is no dispute with regard to shareholding of the assessee. Now coming to the amount of advance taken by assessee, we note that assessee has not only taken loan / advance from SVPL, but also it has sometime given advance to SVPL. Thus, there was change in the balance shown by assessee. Thus, it cannot be termed as advance taken by assessee as it was fluctuating during the year. There remains no doubt that the transactions between assessee and SVPL is representing current account transactions. Therefore, the provision of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be attracted to such transactions. Also bearing in mind the entire facts of the case, we deem it fit and proper to uphold the grievance of the assessee and quash the impugned revision order as devoid of jurisdiction. The assessee gets the relief, accordingly - Assessee s appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kolkata-2 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of deemed dividend income under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
3. Assessment of loan transactions between the assessee and Subhchintak Vancom Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed disputing the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kolkata-2 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main ground of appeal was that the order was held erroneous by the Principal Commissioner as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

2. The dispute revolved around the applicability of deemed dividend income under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Principal Commissioner observed that the loan taken by the assessee from Subhchintak Vancom Pvt. Ltd. attracted the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee contended that the transactions represented current account transactions and not deemed dividend income.

3. The assessment of loan transactions between the assessee and Subhchintak Vancom Pvt. Ltd. was crucial. The ledger of transactions revealed fluctuating balances between the parties, indicating current account transactions. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law and judgments to support the contention that such transactions do not fall under the purview of deemed dividend income as per section 2(22)(e) of the Act.

4. The Tribunal found that the transactions between the assessee and Subhchintak Vancom Pvt. Ltd. were indeed current account transactions and not deemed dividend income. Citing previous judgments and case law, the Tribunal quashed the revision order as lacking jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the transactions, legal provisions, and precedents in similar cases. By upholding the assessee's contention that the transactions were current account dealings, the Tribunal provided relief to the assessee by allowing the appeal and setting aside the revision order.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal's comprehensive analysis and reliance on legal principles and precedents led to the quashing of the revision order, providing the assessee with the necessary relief in the matter.