2019 (12) TMI 609 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT-A has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition in dispute by holding that the amount cannot be taxed as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee company who was not the share holder of the lender company. CIT(A) further observed that in the assessment year 2010-11 the deemed dividend in dispute was received by the assessee company from M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. would be taxed in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman who are shareholders holding substantial interest in M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. who holds a substantial interest in the assessee company and are the share holders in both the companies. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to take necessary action to tax the amount in dispute in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman. No interference is called for in the well reasoned order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of ?3,20,00,000 as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) for the assessment year 2011-12. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to tax the amount in dispute in the hands of specific shareholders holding substantial interest in the lender company. The Revenue argued that the addition should not have been deleted based on the previous year's assessment where the deemed dividend was taxed in the hands of the shareholders. The Revenue relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer and written submissions to support its case.

The assessee, represented by its Counsel, defended the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), stating that the shareholders in question held substantial interest in both the lender company and the assessee company. It was argued that the Assessing Officer rightly directed the tax liability towards the specific shareholders as per the previous year's assessment. The Counsel requested the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

After hearing both parties and examining the submissions, the Tribunal observed that the assessee company had received a loan from a company, and the shareholders of both companies were the same individuals. The Tribunal noted that the loan was considered deemed dividend based on the conditions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly directed the tax liability towards the shareholders holding substantial interest in both companies. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference in the Ld. CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision to tax the deemed dividend in the hands of specific shareholders as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.