9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 218 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) addition - assessee is a director/shareholder of the company BMPL having a running/current account with the company - Held that - Running account or current account of the Director & shareholder of the company cannot be treated as loan or advance account. In this case, the perusal of the ledger account clearly shows that the assessee s account with BMPL was a running/current account, containing both debit as well as credit entries. Credit balance arising in the said account on 09.11.2006, cannot be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LIMITED 2006 (1) TMI 97 - MADRAS HIGH COURT We set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of deemed dividend - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. 2. Service of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act within the stipulated time. 3. Passing of an ex-parte order without considering submissions and objections. 4. Addition of &8377; 77,26,899/- u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act The appeal was against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Nagpur dated 26.12.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. The grounds of appeal challenged the legality of the order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer had added &8377; 77,26,899/- to the income of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The issue was whether the order was legally valid. Issue 2: Service of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act within the stipulated time The grounds of appeal also raised the issue of non-service of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act within the stipulated time, questioning the validity of the assessment order. The timing and service of the notice were crucial aspects in determining the legality of the proceedings. Issue 3: Passing of an ex-parte order without considering submissions and objections The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order without considering the submissions and objections, which was further affirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The issue revolved around the procedural fairness and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to present their case. Issue 4: Addition of &8377; 77,26,899/- u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act The main substantive issue was the addition of &8377; 77,26,899/- u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer treated a credit balance in the assessee's account with a company as deemed dividend, leading to the addition. The validity of this treatment was challenged by the assessee, arguing that the running account of a director/shareholder with the company cannot be considered a loan or advance. The Tribunal analyzed various case laws and provisions related to section 2(22)(e) of the Act, emphasizing that the section aims to prevent tax avoidance by closely held companies. It was established that the running account of a director/shareholder with the company should not be treated as a loan or advance. The Tribunal referred to precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition of deemed dividend. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition of deemed dividend. The appeal was partly allowed, and the issue of assumption of jurisdiction was not further addressed due to the decision on merits in favor of the assessee.
|
