Tribunal upholds notice validity, deems dividend addition, confirms reassessment. MOU found a device.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under section 148, the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), and the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer. It found that the MOU between the company and the assessee was a device to transfer money to the assessee for his benefit, confirming the lower authorities' decisions. The reassessment was deemed not contrary to the law, dismissing the appeals for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under section 148 and subsequent reassessment.
2. Addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of notice under section 148 and subsequent reassessment:

The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the original assessment was completed under section 143(1), and hence, the provisions of section 148 were not applicable. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 30-3-2005, based on the information gathered during the scrutiny assessment proceedings of assessment year 2002-03 in the case of M/s. Shivani Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., where it was noted that the company had given advances in the nature of loans over the years. The reassessment was upheld by the CIT(A) on the ground that the original assessment was completed under section 143(1), and therefore, the provisions of section 148 were applicable. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating that the Assessing Officer is not required to identify and record failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment when the original assessment was made under section 143(1). The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground on this issue.

2. Addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The assessee received an advance from M/s. Shivani Hospital (P.) Ltd., a company in which he and his wife were directors and held more than 10% shares. The Assessing Officer treated the advance of Rs. 2,23,574 as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as the company had accumulated profits and the advance was not returned. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the conditions laid down in the MOU were not fulfilled, and the advance made by the company fell within the purview of section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal examined the MOU and found that it lacked basic ingredients of a genuine and real commercial transaction. The MOU was not registered, there was no stipulation as to when the assessee would return the money or execute the lease deed, and no steps were taken by the company to recover the advance or the land. The Tribunal concluded that the MOU was a device to transfer money to the assessee for his benefit and confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,23,574 as deemed dividend.

3. Whether the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of law:

The assessee argued that the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the provisions of law. However, the Tribunal found that the MOU between the company and the assessee was a colourable device to transfer money to the assessee for his benefit. The Tribunal referred to various judicial authorities, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, which held that in a controlled group, the declaration of dividend is within the discretion of the controlling group, and they may adopt a device of advancing the profits by way of loan to its shareholders to avoid payment of tax on accumulated profits. The Tribunal held that the MOU was a device to transfer the money to the assessee for providing benefit to him for the purchase of land and house constructed thereupon for his benefit. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer was not contrary to the provisions of law.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, upholding the validity of the notice under section 148, the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), and the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the MOU was a device to transfer money to the assessee for his benefit and confirmed the orders of the authorities below.

---