1997 (9) TMI 629 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of Deemed Dividend Rule under Income-tax Act: Emphasis on Debtor-Creditor Relationship

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Smt. Savithiri Sam

The Madras High Court interpreted section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act regarding deemed dividend in a case involving a shareholder transferring funds ... - Issues:Interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act in relation to deemed dividend; Treatment of transferred amount as payment under the Act; Application of legal precedents in determining deemed dividend.Analysis:The judgment by the Madras High Court involved the interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act regarding deemed dividend, specifically focusing on the treatment of a transferred amount as a payment under the Act. The case revolved around a shareholder in a private limited company and the transfer of a substantial sum from her deceased husband's account to hers, leading to a dispute on whether this transfer constituted a payment attracting the provisions of section 2(22)(e).The Tribunal analyzed the application of section 2(22)(e) by first determining the loan taken by the shareholder and then assessing the accumulated profits of the company. In referencing legal precedents, the Tribunal preferred to follow the judgment in G.R. Govindarajulu Naidu v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 13, emphasizing the jural relationship of debtor and creditor between the shareholder and the company as crucial in deeming a payment. This decision contrasted with the Income-tax Officer's reliance on T. Sundaram Chettiar v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 287, where factual payment of a loan was a prerequisite for deeming it as dividend income.The Madras High Court, aligning with the principles established in G.R. Govindarajulu Naidu case, emphasized that section 2(22)(e) already includes a fiction where dividend encompasses any payment by a company. Therefore, the Court rejected the notion of introducing another fiction to construe a transfer entry as equivalent to payment, emphasizing that a constructive payment interpretation was unwarranted. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the transferred amount did not qualify as a payment under section 2(22)(e) and dismissing the Revenue's arguments.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, highlighting the significance of the debtor-creditor relationship in deeming a payment as dividend income. By referencing relevant legal precedents and emphasizing the statutory fiction already present in the Act, the Court clarified the scope of deemed dividend and upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.