2019 (7) TMI 168 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT - As per Section 2(22)(e) as it stands today, if a shareholder having substantial interest in the company, received money or the company paid money to a concern in which the shareholder is interested or the money was paid for the benefit of shareholder, then it has to be deemed to be dividend. In this case, the Ld.counsel could not clarify who are the shareholders in the assessee-company and in the lender company. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the AO. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the AO. AO shall bring on record the entire shareholding pattern of the assessee-company as well as the lender company and thereafter decide the issue after taking into consideration the language employed by the Parliament in Section 2(22)(e). - Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend from a loan received by the assessee-company from another company.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, specifically concerning a loan received by the assessee from M/s Southern Chromatics Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's counsel argued that the loan cannot be deemed as dividend since the assessee-company is not a registered shareholder of M/s Southern Chromatics Pvt. Ltd. The lack of clarity regarding the shareholding pattern of both companies was noted during the proceedings. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the loan was advanced to the assessee-company by M/s Southern Chromatics Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the legislative intent behind Section 2(22)(e) to prevent tax avoidance through such transactions. The representative highlighted the substantial shareholding of specific individuals in M/s Southern Chromatics Pvt. Ltd. and the tax implications due to the absence of tax deduction by the lender company.

Upon considering the arguments and examining the relevant provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the Tribunal acknowledged the loan received by the assessee from M/s Southern Chromatics Pvt. Ltd. However, due to the lack of clarity regarding the shareholding pattern of both companies, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain and document the complete shareholding details of both companies before making a decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the language used in the legislative provision while reevaluating the matter. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis reflects the Tribunal's thorough review of the arguments presented by both parties, the legislative provisions, and the need for a comprehensive assessment of the shareholding structures before determining the tax implications of the loan transaction under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.