2017 (4) TMI 1064 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of peak of deposits in the bank account - deemed dividend addition - Held that - The directors of the assessee company had raised loans from Shri Jagdish Lal. On enquiry from Shri Jagdish Lal, it was found that he was not a man of means. He was residing in a rented house. His income was below taxable limit. His statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He deposed that he was not assessed to income tax. He further stated that current account No.6337 in Punjab National Bank was opened by him on behalf of Shri P.R.Gupta and he had not deposited any money of his own in this account. When he was asked to give the source of various advances given by him through cheques, he replied that he suffered heavy losses and had not given any loan or advances to any person. After considering the entire evidence on record, it has been categorically recorded by the Assessing officer that the assessee company had not filed any evidence that the amounts in questions were advanced for purchase of wheat. Further, no evidence had been filed that the wheat was not available and the amounts in question were taken as loans by the directors. No evidence was led as to how the loans taken by the directors from the accounts of M/s Jagdish Lal Karan Singh were utilized. Further Shri Jagdish Lal, proprietor of M/s Jagdish Lal was not produced by the assessee. we find that sufficient reasons have been given by the Assessing Officer for the addition to the income of the assessee. The finding has been recorded after considering the evidence and the material on record. The CIT(A) has reversed the said finding without giving any cogent and convincing reasons. The Tribunal has upheld the said finding as it is. In view of the above, it would be appropriate that the orders dated 2.3.2001 and 15.9.2006 passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for considering it afresh after hearing learned counsel for the parties in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's order for block assessment period 1988-89 to 1997-98.
2. Addition of ?45,70,000 on account of peak deposits in a bank account.
3. Treatment of loan to Directors as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-revenue appealed against the Tribunal's order for the block assessment period 1988-89 to 1997-98, raising questions of law. The case involved the addition of ?45,70,000 on account of peak deposits in a bank account and the treatment of a loan to Directors as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

2. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies related to loans raised by the company's directors from a certain individual. Despite explanations provided by the company, the Assessing Officer treated the undisclosed amount as the company's income for the block period. The CIT(A) later deleted this addition, stating that the amount was in the nature of a direct deposit in the directors' accounts, qualifying as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

3. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the cheques were issued from the company's disclosed account, proving the source of the advances. The Tribunal concluded that the amount deposited in the directors' accounts could be considered as deemed dividend. The High Court noted that while the Assessing Officer had valid reasons for the addition, the CIT(A) and Tribunal's decisions lacked sufficient reasoning. Consequently, the High Court set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration after hearing both parties.