Cash seized from residence belongs to company, not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) when assessee acts as custodian (22)(e)

ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee regarding cash seized from residence and auditor's office. The tribunal held that cash belonged to the company and was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Key findings: no loan/advance entries in company books, assessee acted as custodian per board resolution, property purchase made through banking channels from personal accounts, and no personal use of company funds established. The conditions for invoking section 2(22)(e) were not satisfied. Appeal allowed.

---

---

The core legal issue considered by the Tribunal was whether the cash seized from the assessee's residence and the auditor's office could be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, given the assessee's status as a substantial shareholder and managing director of the company from which the cash allegedly originated.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of section 2(22)(e) which deems certain loans or advances made by a company to its shareholders as dividends. The essential condition under this provision is that there must be a loan or advance made by the company to the shareholder. The Tribunal examined whether the seized cash constituted such a loan or advance or whether it was merely held by the assessee in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the company.

The relevant legal framework includes section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which defines deemed dividend as any loan or advance made by a company to a shareholder holding not less than 10% voting rights, subject to certain exceptions. The Tribunal also relied on judicial precedents, notably the Pune ITAT decision in ACIT v. Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi, which held that if a director holds company funds in a fiduciary capacity without personal use, section 2(22)(e) does not apply. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruling in Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax was cited to emphasize that a valid loan or advance requires a clear agreement between borrower and lender, absent in this case.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the absence of any formal loan or advance transaction in the company's books. There was no debit entry or agreement indicating that the company had made a loan or advance to the assessee. The cash found was explained by the assessee as funds generated from suppressed sales of the company, which remained company property. The assessee asserted that he held the cash merely as custodian, authorized by a board resolution to hold company assets, including cash.

The Tribunal scrutinized the allegation that the cash was used for personal benefit, specifically for the purchase of land in the names of the assessee and his son. The AO had relied on an agreement of sale found during the search to assert this. However, the Tribunal examined the documents produced by the assessee, including the sale deed and bank statements, which demonstrated that the land purchase was executed through banking channels from the personal accounts of the assessee and his son. There was no material evidence to suggest that the seized cash was utilized for this purpose.

The Tribunal also addressed the rejection of the board resolution by the CIT(A) on grounds of delayed submission and questioned credibility. The Tribunal held that delay alone does not render evidence unreliable, especially when it clarifies the assessee's fiduciary role. The board resolution was relevant to establish that the assessee held the cash in trust for the company rather than for personal use.

The Tribunal considered the competing arguments: the revenue's contention that the cash was diverted for personal benefit and thus constituted deemed dividend, versus the assessee's claim of fiduciary holding without personal use. The Tribunal found the revenue's reliance on the agreement of sale insufficient to prove diversion of cash. The absence of any entries in the company's books treating the cash as loan or advance further weakened the revenue's case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking section 2(22)(e) were not satisfied. The cash belonged to the company, was not used for personal benefit by the assessee, and no loan or advance was made. The Tribunal set aside the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), directing deletion of the deemed dividend addition.

Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts and principles:

"A loan or advance must be shown in the records, and that is not the case here."

"If a director holds company funds in a fiduciary role and the money is not used for personal purposes, section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not attracted."

"The purchase of land was made from personal bank accounts, not cash. The allegation that the seized cash was diverted for personal use is, therefore, without any basis."

"Delay in submission does not by itself make evidence unreliable, especially when it clarifies the assessee's role."

"The use of company's funds by a shareholder for personal purposes whether recorded or not, is still considered a deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act." (This principle was acknowledged but found inapplicable on facts.)

The final determination was that the cash seized was not a loan or advance to the assessee, and hence not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The appeal was allowed, and the addition deleted.

---