2016 (11) TMI 1017 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Deemed Dividend

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Versus Krishna Behari Goyal

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Court found no error in the ... Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Advances being for trade and business considerations, assessee having not derived any benefit out of it and rather having acquired disadvantage for the betterment of the company's business cannot be saddled with additions u/s 2(22)(e) Issues:Challenge to Tribunal's decision on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961.Analysis:The High Court heard the appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision upholding the CIT (Appeals) order that reversed the Assessing Officer's decision regarding deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant's counsel framed the substantial question of law, questioning the Tribunal's deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 1,17,89,159 made by the Assessing Officer. The counsel argued that interest-free advances were given to reduce the company's profit for the benefit of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) with losses. The counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the Tribunal's finding that the payments were for the assessee's benefit was a factual determination and not perverse. The Tribunal's analysis correlated the existence of loans with accumulated profits, concluding that the High Court erred in disturbing these findings.The Tribunal was criticized for erroneously treating the income or advance made by the Managing Director of the Company as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The High Court considered the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, emphasizing that the Tribunal had properly considered the advantages derived by the company from the mortgage of properties belonging to the assessee and family members. The Tribunal's decision was supported by references to Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including interpretations of the term 'advance' in connection with the word 'loan' under the Act. Various legal precedents were cited to support the conclusion that the advances made were for trade and business considerations, and the assessee did not derive personal benefit from them. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, dismissing the revenue's appeal.In its final decision, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that no error had been committed by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the presence of concurrent findings and concluded that no substantial question of law merited consideration. Consequently, the appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was dismissed.