Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision on deemed dividend, invalidates reopening under section 147.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was invalid, as it was based on a change of opinion without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Commercial transactions between companies were deemed not falling under the provisions of section 2(22)(e), and reopening assessments after four years necessitated a finding of failure to disclose material facts, which was lacking in this case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of reopening the assessment u/s 147.

Summary:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The Revenue contended that the transactions between the assessee company and its subsidiary, M/s. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. (GIL), should be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The Assessing Officer (A.O.) reopened the assessment and added Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the transactions were normal business transactions and not covered by the provisions of section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) relied on his own order for A.Y. 2003-04 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462, which stated that trade advances do not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of section 2(22)(e).

Issue 2: Validity of reopening the assessment u/s 147

The CIT(A) held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The CIT(A) relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Cartini India Ltd. vs. ACIT 224 CTR (Bom) 82, which stated that reopening based on material already considered would amount to reviewing the assessment order. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the reasons for reopening did not indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Bhavesh Developers vs. ACIT 34 DTR 125, which held that reopening after four years requires a finding of failure to disclose material facts, which was absent in this case.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend and ruling that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that commercial transactions between companies do not fall under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) and that reopening based on a change of opinion is not permissible.

---