Transactions for business exigencies not personal benefit; Section 2(22)(e) not applicable. CIT(A) order set aside.

The Tribunal found that the transactions between the assessee and GAPL were for business exigencies and not for personal benefit, thus falling outside the purview of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount received by the assessee from GAPL constitutes a "deemed dividend" under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the transactions between the assessee and GAPL were for business exigencies and thus outside the scope of Section 2(22)(e).

Summary:

Issue 1: Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e)
The primary issue was whether the amount received by the assessee from GAPL should be treated as a "deemed dividend" under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 32,83,186/- under this section, considering the amount as an unsecured loan due to the assessee's 17.20% shareholding in GAPL. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading the assessee to appeal.

Issue 2: Business Exigencies
The assessee argued that the transactions with GAPL were regular business transactions, involving the receipt and repayment of funds based on business requirements. The funds were provided and received as per the business needs, with interest being charged at market rates. The assessee relied on several judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Suraj Dev Dada, which held that advances made for business purposes do not fall within the ambit of deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e).

Assessment Proceedings:
The AO viewed the transactions as loans and advances, thus attracting Section 2(22)(e). However, the assessee contended that these were current account transactions for business expediency, supported by financial statements and audit reports.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal noted that the transactions were indeed for business exigencies, with TDS deducted on the interest paid. It relied on various judgments, including Pradip Kumar Malhotra and Amrik Singh, which supported the view that advances made for business purposes do not constitute deemed dividends. The Tribunal also considered the CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, which clarified that advances for business transactions are outside the scope of Section 2(22)(e).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the transactions between the assessee and GAPL were for business exigencies and not for personal benefit, thus falling outside the purview of Section 2(22)(e). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.

Result:
The appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No. 189/Asr/2018 and ITA 513/Asr/2019 were allowed.

---