9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1747 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - The company had advanced loan directly to the shareholder for purchase of capital asset land to comply with certain land transfer restrictions to be used by the company. The advance was not for the personal benefit of the shareholder. So section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. The registry has informed that Revenue has not preferred any appeal in assessment year 2010-11 against the above extracted CIT(A) s order followed in the impugned assessment year. The instant issue has attained finality therefore in taxpayer s favour since the Revenue has itself accepted correctness of the CIT(A) s order deleting the very addition in earlier assessment year. We thus reject its sole substantive grievance as well as main appeal. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Deemed Dividend Addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deemed Dividend Addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue's sole substantive ground in this appeal was to revive the Assessing Officer's action of making a deemed dividend addition of ?2,42,00,000 under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had previously reversed this addition. The CIT(A) noted that this issue had been adjudicated in a similar manner for the assessment year 2010-11, where the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on identical sets of facts. The CIT(A) had followed the principles of consistency and endorsed the decision for the current year as well, allowing the ground of appeal on both fact and law. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by deleting the impugned addition. The case presented by the Revenue was that the assessee's director/key management personnel, who was a common and beneficial shareholder in both the loan recipient and the loan provider entity, had more than 20% shareholding. However, it was noted that the CIT(A) had followed his findings from the preceding assessment year (2010-11) in the impugned assessment year (2012-13). This fact remained unrebutted by the Revenue. The CIT(A)'s order from the earlier assessment year was clear that the assessee was neither the registered nor beneficial shareholder for invoking the deeming fiction under Section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) had provided a detailed discussion, stating that the loan in question was a commercial loan directly linked to the setting up of a second manufacturing unit, and it was not conceivable that the loan could be diverted for the personal benefit of the director. The loan was charged at arm's length interest rate and benefitted both parties commercially. The legal perspective discussed by the CIT(A) emphasized that Section 2(22)(e) should not apply as the loan was for a business requirement and not for the personal benefit of the director. The CIT(A) also referenced several judicial decisions, including the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt Ltd., which supported the view that amounts advanced for business transactions do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal, upon review, agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and noted that the Revenue had not appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2010-11, thereby accepting its correctness. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the deemed dividend addition. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order deleting the deemed dividend addition under Section 2(22)(e) was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial consistency and noted that the issue had attained finality in favor of the taxpayer since the Revenue had not contested the CIT(A)'s decision in the earlier assessment year.
|
