2015 (6) TMI 873 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed dividend - Common shareholders having substantial interest - Held that - In the case of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others 2014 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , it was held that since assessee company is not a share holder of the lender company, the addition in the hands of the assessee is not called for and therefore, is liable to be deleted. Accordingly we delete this addition in the hands of the assessee. However, we have gone through the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT , as this decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court has been concurred with by the Hon ble Bombay High Court. In the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT , their Lordships have observed that since the conditions stipulated in section 2(22)(e) of the Act treating the loan and advances as deemed dividend are establish in such cases, therefore it would always be open to the revenue to take corrective measure by treating this dividend income at the hands of the share holders and tax them accordingly. As otherwise it would amount to escapement of income at the hands of those shareholders. - Decided in favour of assessee with observations in above para.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of judgments in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act:

The primary issue in this case is whether the loan obtained by the assessee company from its group company, M/s. Shree Ram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd., should be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that both companies had common shareholders with substantial interests, leading to the invocation of Section 2(22)(e). The AO added Rs. 4,14,71,946/- to the assessee's income, representing the amount shown as reserve and surplus in the books of Shree Ram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd.

The assessee argued that it should not be treated as deemed dividend since it was not a registered shareholder of the lender company, citing the decisions in ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (313 ITR 146) and CIT Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 263). However, the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not accept this submission, leading to the present appeal.

2. Applicability of Judgments in Similar Cases:

The assessee's representative presented a recent decision by the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others (ITA No. 114 of 2012), which concurred with the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (340 ITR 14). The Bombay High Court held that if the recipient of the amount is not a shareholder of the lender company, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied.

The court emphasized that the term "dividend" includes various distributions to shareholders, and the legislative intent was to tax shareholders receiving such payments. However, if the payment is made to a concern in which the shareholder has a substantial interest but is not a registered shareholder, it cannot be treated as deemed dividend.

The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1980, 122 ITR 1), which stated that only loans advanced to registered shareholders could be considered deemed dividends. The court reiterated that the legal position remains unchanged despite amendments to the provision.

The Bombay High Court's judgment clarified that the definition of "dividend" does not extend to beneficial owners who are not registered shareholders. Thus, the addition made by the AO was not justified, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee company was not a shareholder of the lender company, the addition of Rs. 4,14,71,946/- as deemed dividend was not warranted. The Tribunal deleted the addition, aligning with the legal precedent set by the Bombay High Court and other relevant judgments. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, with the Tribunal making similar observations to those of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd., suggesting that corrective measures could be taken to tax the dividend income in the hands of the shareholders to prevent income escapement.