ITAT affirms CIT(A) decisions on deemed dividend, liability, and contributions under Income Tax Act

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in a case involving the deletion of deemed dividend addition, cessation of liability addition, and disallowance of belated contributions under the Income Tax Act. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, affirming the CIT(A)'s rulings on all issues. The order was pronounced on 10-12-2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act on account of deemed dividend.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 38,21,232/- made under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act due to cessation of liability.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 4,28,367/- made by the assessing officer in respect of belated contribution to provident fund and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act:
The assessing officer noticed that the assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- from Cama Motors Company Ltd. and treated this amount as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as common directors held more than 20% share capital. The assessee argued that it did not hold more than 10% shares in Cama Motors Pvt. Ltd. and was not a shareholder of the company. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, referencing the ITAT's decisions in previous years and the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd., which held that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company. The Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court decisions supported this view. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.

2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 38,21,232/- under Section 41(1) of the Act:
The assessing officer added Rs. 38,21,232/- as income under Section 41(1) due to the cessation of liability, noting that the sundry creditor amount had been carried forward since A.Y. 2007-08 without transactions. The assessee argued that the liability was not written back in the profit and loss account and cited Gujarat High Court decisions in CIT vs. Nitin S. Garg and CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramanlal Atara, which held that merely because liabilities were outstanding for many years, it could not be inferred that they had ceased to exist. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, and the ITAT upheld this decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.

3. Disallowance of Rs. 4,28,367/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act:
The cross-objection pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 4,28,367/- for belated contributions to provident fund and ESIC. The assessee failed to make payments within the time allowed by the respective acts. The ITAT referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC, which held that deductions are only allowed if contributions are credited to the employees' account on or before the due date. The ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance, dismissing the assessee's cross-objection.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10-12-2018.

---