2016 (10) TMI 933 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Deemed Dividend Treatment in Appeal Decision

The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Goel Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision that the amount in question did not constitute a loan or advance but fell ... Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22) - nature of substantial part of the business - Held that:- Where the substantial part of the business is of a financial nature, the exception clause (ii) of Section 2(22) (e) of the Act would apply. See Ravi Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bareilly [2015 (10) TMI 755 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Applicability of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act2. Treatment of amount as deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act3. Justification of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as deemed dividendAnalysis:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax ActThe case involved an income tax appeal against an order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a credit balance in the account of M/s DSM Capitals Ltd. in the balance sheet of the assessee and applied Section 2 (22) (e) regarding deemed dividend. The assessee contended that the amount was not a loan or advance but a part of the ordinary course of business with a company engaged in finance and investment. The AO disagreed and treated the amount as deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act.Issue 2: Treatment of amount as deemed dividend under Section 2 (22) (e) of the ActThe AO's decision to treat the amount as deemed dividend was challenged before the CIT (A), who ruled in favor of the assessee. The CIT (A) noted that since there was no outgoing or flow of money from DSM Capitals Ltd to the assessee, it did not constitute a loan or advance. The department appealed this decision, which was ultimately decided against them by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the substantial part of the business of DSM Capitals Ltd was of lending money, falling within the exception clause (ii) of Section 2(22) (e) of the Act, thereby dismissing the department's appeal.Issue 3: Justification of addition made by the AO as deemed dividendThe Tribunal's judgment highlighted that when a substantial part of the business is of a financial nature, the exception clause (ii) of Section 2(22) (e) of the Act applies. This finding was supported by a previous decision of the Court. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, answering the questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the applicability of Section 2(22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of considering the nature of business activities when determining the treatment of amounts under the Act.