Tribunal rules loan to assessee not dividend; appeal allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the loan received by the assessee could not be deemed as dividend under Section 2(22)(e) as the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the previous representative's failure to communicate the order. The issue of taxability under Section 40(a)(ia) was not extensively addressed as the focus was on the deemed dividend matter. The appeal was allowed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Applicability of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Taxability of payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee appealed against the order dated 10/05/2018, with a delay of 227 days. The delay was attributed to the previous representative's failure to communicate the order to the assessee, as the order was misplaced in the representative's office. The Tribunal, considering the affidavit and the principle that substantive rights should not be denied due to technicalities, condoned the delay in the interest of justice.

2. Applicability of Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act:
The primary contention was whether the loan of Rs. 81,67,625/- received by the assessee from M/s Fateh Agro Builders Pvt. Ltd. could be considered as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee argued that it was not a shareholder of the lending company, and thus, the provisions of deemed dividend were not applicable. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs Sarva Equity Pvt. Ltd., which held that deemed dividend provisions apply only to registered shareholders. Since the assessee, a partnership firm, was not a shareholder in M/s Fateh Agro Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the loan could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

3. Taxability of Payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 7,18,628/- made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source, arguing that the payments were not based on any contractual obligation under Section 194C but were day-to-day business expenditures. However, this issue was not separately adjudicated in detail as the primary focus was on the deemed dividend matter.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the loan received by the assessee from M/s Fateh Agro Builders Pvt. Ltd. could not be considered as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. The appeal was thus allowed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were accepted.

---