2016 (9) TMI 1534 - HC - Income Tax

Managing Director's withdrawals deemed business expenses, not dividends, under Section 2(22)(e) - Context key in tax cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Versus Ashok Kumar Agarwal

The Court dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the withdrawals by the Managing Director were for business purposes ... Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- It is a general practice in the line of business that most of the land are purchased and sold on agreement to sale basis to save the stamp duty and to increase the profit on the transactions. These facts have been accepted by the AO in scrutiny assessment also in number of years. The condition laid down in the Section 2(22)(e) are squarely applied in case of the assessee but only issue disputed is whether these advances were loan for business purpose or otherwise. The prima facie copy of accounts in the books of the company shows that assessee had paid much more than amount received from the company. The transactions were regular. The assessee produced the evidence before the lower authorities to justify the transaction as a business transaction on the basis of agreement to sale dated 22.7.2009. There were certain conditions as per this Ikrarnama, which could not be fulfilled by the assessee but it does not mean that assessee's loans and advances are not for business purposes. Assessee had explained the reasons for not getting 90B done of agricultural land at Village Ajayrajpura, Tehsil Sanganer as Draft Master Plan got changed by the JDA by draft Notification dated 10.11.2009 wherein it has been decided by the JDA that land use under 90B was to be approved not less than 25 acres but in final Master Plan this areas has been reduced to 10 hectares. The assessee fild application on 23.8.2012 under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act before the JDA which was rejected by the JDA. The case laws relied on by the ld. A/R are squarely applicable on the facts of the case. Therefore, we hold that transactions made by the assessee and the company are for business purpose and are not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). Tribunal has rightly appreciated that on the last date of ending of the financial year he has cleared all the transactions. The appeal is devoid of merit and no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Issues:Challenge to ITAT judgment by Department on withdrawal of amounts by Managing Director for personal use.Analysis:The Department challenged the ITAT judgment that allowed the assessee's appeal and reversed the CIT(A) order regarding substantial amounts withdrawn by the Managing Director for personal use. The CIT(A) observed multiple withdrawals for personal benefits like house construction, loan repayment, and land purchase. The appellant contended that these transactions were not for business purposes, citing precedents. The Tribunal discussed various transactions between the assessee and the company, highlighting the regular nature of the withdrawals. The Tribunal accepted the transactions as business-related based on evidence presented, including an agreement to sale. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had cleared all transactions by the end of the financial year, indicating a business purpose. The Tribunal concluded that the withdrawals were not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the transactions and the nature of the business. The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the assessee and the explanation for certain conditions not being fulfilled. The Tribunal also took into account the legal precedents cited by the appellant's representative, affirming that the transactions were for business purposes. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the regularity and business nature of the transactions, ultimately leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the reversal of the CIT(A) order.The Court found no merit in the Department's appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the withdrawals by the Managing Director were for business purposes and not deemed dividends. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the context and evidence surrounding financial transactions to determine their purpose and legality, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Department's challenge.