Advance for Land Sale Not Deemed Dividend: High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that an advance received for the sale of land was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, as it was part consideration for the property sale, not a loan. Regarding the advance for transportation charges, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that a portion of the amount received was for services rendered by the assessee, dismissing the appeal due to no substantial question of law arising.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act on advance received for sale of land and transportation charges payable by the company to the assessee.

Deemed Dividend on Advance for Sale of Land:
The respondent, a proprietor of a transportation business, received an advance of Rs. 25,00,000 from a company towards the sale of land. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. However, the CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, stating that the advance was for the purchase of immovable property and hence fell outside the purview of deemed dividend. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the transaction was genuine and the amount was part consideration for the sale of land, not a loan to a shareholder. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the advance for the property sale did not constitute deemed dividend.

Advance Towards Transportation Charges:
The Revenue contended that a portion of the advance received by the assessee, totaling Rs. 47,99,572, represented transportation charges payable by the company. The Tribunal found that Rs. 17,00,000 of this amount was indeed an advance for transportation services rendered by the assessee to the company. The Tribunal's factual finding was based on the assessee providing transportation services to the company without receiving payment during a specific period. As this finding was a question of fact, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the income tax appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---