2015 (10) TMI 1608 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, deems dividend not taxable for non-shareholders.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the ... Deemed dividend addition under section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Undisputedly, the appellant is not a shareholder of M/s. Country-wide Promoters P. Ltd. It is trite law that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application to non-registered shareholders. The hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar [1971 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court] while construing the provisions of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act, 1922 which are in pari materia with the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held that the provisions governing the deemed dividend can be made applicable only in the hands of the registered shareholders. Since, admittedly, in the present case, the appellant is not a shareholder of M/s. Countrywide Promoters P. Ltd. the amount of ₹ 1,73,262 cannot be taxed in the hands of the appellant-company. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Appeal against addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- Interpretation of provisions of section 2(22)(e) in the case of non-registered shareholders.Analysis:Issue 1: Appeal against addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961The appeal was filed by the assessee-company against the addition of &8377; 1,73,262 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had made this addition based on loans received by the appellant-company from certain entities. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this addition partially, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench. The Tribunal had earlier set aside the issue for re-examination, but upon re-assessment, the addition was made again. The appellant contended that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) did not apply to them as they were not shareholders of the relevant company. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that since the appellant was not a shareholder of the company in question, the amount could not be taxed in their hands.Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of section 2(22)(e) in the case of non-registered shareholdersThe crux of the matter revolved around whether the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to non-registered shareholders. The appellant vehemently argued that since they were not registered shareholders of the company from which the deemed dividend arose, the provisions did not apply to them. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, citing the decision of the hon'ble apex court in a similar case. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions governing deemed dividend can only be applicable to registered shareholders. Therefore, in the absence of shareholding by the appellant in the relevant company, the amount in question could not be taxed in the hands of the appellant-company. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal against the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment clarified that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not apply to non-registered shareholders, emphasizing the importance of shareholding for the application of such provisions.