2009 (2) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

AO made addition treating the benefits taken from the company as deemed dividend by invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e) - Tribunal found that AO had not recorded any finding that there were accumulated profits within the meaning of said term u/s 2(22)(e) - Tribunal is right in deleting the additions observing that the conditions prescribed under Sec.2(22)(e) were not satisfied

Issues:

1. Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend.
2. Whether the conditions under Section 2(22)(e) were satisfied in the case.
3. Tribunal's authority to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Requirement of establishing accumulated profits for deeming a payment as dividend.
5. Tribunal's decision not to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend

The court analyzed Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which defines 'dividend' inclusively. It was noted that any payment by a company to a shareholder, whether by way of advance or loan, or for the individual benefit of the shareholder, can be deemed as a dividend if the shareholder meets certain criteria, such as being a beneficial owner of at least ten percent of the voting power. However, for such a payment to be considered a dividend and taxed in the hands of the shareholder, it must be established that the company has accumulated profits, and the taxable amount would be limited to the extent of these accumulated profits.

Issue 2: Whether the conditions under Section 2(22)(e) were satisfied in the case

The Tribunal, in this case, deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the provision required the establishment of specific facts: either the payment from the company had to be by way of advance or loan, or made for the benefit of the assessee, with both scenarios necessitating the payment to be from accumulated profits. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not determined the existence of accumulated profits, leading to the deletion of the addition.

Issue 3: Tribunal's authority to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer

The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was challenged by the revenue, arguing that the matter should have been remanded to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the existence of accumulated profits. However, the Court held that since there were no submissions or pleadings requesting such a remand, the Tribunal was not obligated to provide a second opportunity to the parties. The Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition.

Issue 4: Requirement of establishing accumulated profits for deeming a payment as dividend

The Court emphasized that for a payment by a company to be deemed a dividend under Section 2(22)(e), it is crucial to establish the existence of accumulated profits within the company. In the absence of such findings, the payment cannot be considered a dividend for taxation purposes. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the lack of evidence regarding the payment being sourced from accumulated profits.

Issue 5: Tribunal's decision not to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer

The Court addressed the contention that the Tribunal should have sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer to determine the presence of accumulated profits. It was held that without any requests or submissions to that effect, the Tribunal was not required to grant a second opportunity to the parties. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the order did not warrant any interference.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, disposing of the reference accordingly.

← Previous Next →