2020 (3) TMI 463 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Assessee contention the amount is not a loan taken from PASPL rather said amount is a security deposit received in terms of agreement under which the industrial land was given for industrial use to PASPL. - HELD THAT - Assessee has taken security deposits from his sister concern. In our considered opinion, same will not be covered under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and we hold advances were given for business purpose only. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?83,00,000 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of addition of income of ?84,88,368 from industrial sheds under the head house property income.
3. Deletion of addition of ?87,687 under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?83,00,000 as Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(e):
The assessee contended that the amount of ?83,00,000 received from M/s. Patel Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd. (PASPL) was a security deposit and not a loan. The Assessee held 22.19% shares in PASPL. The lower authorities treated this amount as a loan and added it under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with deemed dividends. The Tribunal referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of CIT, Agra vs. Atul Engineering Udyog, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the security deposit received was a business transaction and not a loan or advance. Thus, the addition of ?83,00,000 as deemed dividend was deleted.

2. Deletion of Addition of Income of ?84,88,368 from Industrial Sheds:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of ?84,88,368 added as income from industrial sheds under the head house property income. The Assessing Officer had calculated the Annual Letting Value (ALV) based on the Fair Market Value, while the CIT(A) had taken ALV at 8.5% of the cost of the building. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was covered by the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08/08/2019, which led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect.

3. Deletion of Addition of ?87,687 Under Section 14A:
The Revenue also appealed against the deletion of ?87,687 added under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. The Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal as well, citing the same CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

4. Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The Assessee contested the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's order, implying that the primary focus was on the main grounds of appeal.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):
The Assessee also contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Similar to the levy of interest, this issue was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed, leading to the deletion of the addition of ?83,00,000 as deemed dividend. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect as per the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in open court on 16-01-2020.

← Previous Next →