Petitioner wins deemed dividend case under section 2(22)(e) after tribunal reverses assessment order (22)(e)

The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding reopening of assessment for deemed dividend addition under section 2(22)(e). The petitioner had purchased property using funds from a company where they held 29% shares. The original assessment order dated 29.12.2017 added deemed income, which was upheld by CIT (Appeals) on 08.09.2022. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision. The Department's attempt to include additional amounts beyond the original assessment failed, and with the appeal being withdrawn, the issue was resolved against the Revenue and in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2015-2016 based on Impugned Notice/Communication dated 26.03.2021 and consequential Speaking Order dated 17.02.2022.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the Impugned Notice/Communication dated 26.03.2021 to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The petitioner, along with his mother, invested in a flat and the petitioner's mother contributed a portion from the sale of her shares. The petitioner argued that the invocation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner repaid the loan amount and had previously appealed against the assessment, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and later by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the addition of a specific amount as "deemed income" in the earlier assessment order. The petitioner contended that there was no tangible material for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 147 of the Act.

The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the ITAT order did not attain finality due to low tax effect and the Department was not precluded from reopening the assessment. They highlighted a provision of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding loans to directors and questioned the repayment explanation. The petitioner's counsel countered by providing details of the accounts from which payments were made. The respondents emphasized the relevance of determining the escaped amount for reopening the assessment and challenged the ITAT order's correctness.

The court reviewed the arguments from both sides and examined the reasons communicated for reopening the assessment. It noted the previous addition of a specific amount to the petitioner's income and subsequent appeals. The court found that the Department sought to add an additional amount over the earlier assessment order, which was subsequently deleted. Considering these developments and the withdrawal of the appeal, the court concluded in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.

---