Sister company loans don't trigger deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) without shareholding relationship

ITAT Delhi held that deemed dividend provisions under section 2(22)(e) were not applicable where sister concerns provided loans to the assessee, as the assessee was neither a beneficial nor registered shareholder in the lending companies. The tribunal noted that while a holding company had substantial interest in all entities, the direct lending relationship did not trigger deemed dividend treatment. Additionally, the tribunal deleted an addition under section 68 for unsecured loans from Global Distributors Limited, finding that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established through arbitration awards and documentary evidence. The assessee succeeded on both issues.

---

---

Issues presented and considered:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,81,59,953/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified where the assessee company is not a registered or beneficial shareholder in the lending companies but has borrowed short-term loans from sister concerns having a common substantial shareholder.

2. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,37,16,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit (unsecured loan from Global Distributors Limited) is justified, considering the assessee's explanation and evidence regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender and the transaction.

3. Whether the provisions of section 68 require the assessee to prove the source of source of the unexplained credit.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of section 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend on loans from sister concerns

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 2(22)(e) defines "dividend" to include any payment by a closely held company (not substantially owned by the public) by way of loan or advance to a shareholder holding not less than 10% of voting power or to any concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest, to the extent of accumulated profits of the lending company. The provision aims to tax loans or advances as deemed dividends to shareholders or concerns substantially interested in the company.

Precedents cited included the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company, which clarified that the expression "shareholder" in section 2(22)(e) refers to a person who is the beneficial owner of shares, and the provisions apply only where the recipient is a shareholder or a concern in which the shareholder has substantial interest.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] initially held that since M/s Aeren R Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. held substantial shareholding (more than 20%) in both the assessee company and the lending companies (Shree Mahesh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Smart Estates Pvt. Ltd.), the loans taken by the assessee from these sister concerns attracted section 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's contention that the provision applies only to registered or beneficial shareholders and upheld the addition.

However, on appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee argued reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech Pvt. Ltd., which held that the provision applies only when the recipient is a shareholder or a concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest. The Tribunal observed that the assessee company was neither a registered shareholder nor beneficial owner in the lending companies. The common substantial shareholder was Aeren R Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., but the loans were between sister concerns, not from a company to its shareholder or to a concern in which the shareholder has substantial interest. The Tribunal noted the absence of any evidence that the assessee company had transferred funds to the holding company or that the loans were for the benefit of the shareholder. Thus, neither limb of section 2(22)(e) was attracted.

Key evidence and findings: Shareholding patterns showed no shareholding by the assessee in the lending companies; Aeren R Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was common substantial shareholder. The assessee had produced relevant documents and relied on judicial precedents.

Application of law to facts: Since the assessee was not a shareholder or a concern in which the shareholder had substantial interest, the deemed dividend provisions under section 2(22)(e) did not apply to the loans taken from sister concerns.

Treatment of competing arguments: The AO and CIT(A) relied on the common substantial shareholder to invoke section 2(22)(e), whereas the assessee relied on judicial precedents emphasizing the requirement of beneficial ownership or shareholding by the recipient. The Tribunal found the latter argument persuasive.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the ground and directed deletion of the addition under section 2(22)(e).

Issue 2 and 3: Addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 10,37,16,000/- from Global Distributors Limited and the requirement to prove source of source

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act provides that if any sum is credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum, it may be treated as income. The burden of proof lies heavily on the assessee to establish (i) identity of the creditor, (ii) creditworthiness of the creditor, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO held that the unsecured loan from Global Distributors Limited was not genuine, based on various factors: the directors of Global Distributors Limited were also directors of other group companies; the company had no employees or business activity; the bank account showed frequent deposits and withdrawals with minimal balance maintained; and the transactions were largely within the group. The AO concluded the transactions were sham and disallowed the loan under section 68.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, relying on the heavy burden on the assessee to prove genuineness and creditworthiness and noting that the case laws cited by the assessee were distinguishable.

On appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted extensive evidence including details of borrowings, confirmations, bank statements, and notably an arbitration award arising from a collaboration agreement with Delhi Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd. The arbitration award confirmed the assessee's entitlement to compensation and recognized the substantial investments and bona fide nature of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the award was not placed before the lower authorities.

The Revenue relied on the AO's observations and the fact that Global Distributors Limited had no independent business or profit-making activity, and that the transactions were unusual and largely intra-group.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee produced documentary evidence including bank statements, confirmations, audited accounts of Global Distributors Limited, and the arbitration award. The award confirmed the genuineness of the transactions and the assessee's entitlement to compensation for breach of agreement. The directors' statements and AO's investigation revealed intra-group transactions but did not conclusively establish sham transactions.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor and the transactions. The arbitration award was a significant piece of evidence substantiating the genuineness. Mere frequent intra-group transactions and maintenance of minimum bank balances did not suffice to disprove genuineness.

Treatment of competing arguments: The AO and CIT(A) emphasized the suspicious pattern of transactions and lack of independent business activity of the creditor. The assessee relied on documentary evidence and the arbitration award to prove bona fide nature. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence as sufficient to discharge the burden under section 68.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the grounds relating to addition under section 68 and directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 10,37,16,000/- as unexplained cash credit.

Significant holdings:

On section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal held:

"From the above definition, a company in which public are not substantially interested makes a payment by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power. In such situation, provisions of section 2(22)(e) are attracted. In the given case... the assessee is not a beneficial shareholder nor a registered shareholder. Therefore, the concept of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not attracted in the given case... Therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) squarely covered in the present case also. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the above addition made in this case."

On section 68, the Tribunal observed:

"Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 provides that, where any sum is found credited in the books of assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source therefore the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory; the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year. The burden of proof is heavily cast on the assessee. First of all, he must furnish an explanation as otherwise the cash credit will be treated as his income. Secondly, the explanation offered must be to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It is by now well-settled that what all is required from the assessee by way of explanation is, (i) that he must establish the identity of the payer; (ii) that he must prove the creditworthiness of the payer, and (iii) that he must prove the genuineness of the transaction."

Further, the Tribunal concluded:

"The Award in favour of the assessee awarded in the arbitration proceedings proves that the transaction is genuine... Therefore, the assessee has already proved the genuineness of the transaction and in our view, there is no requirement to remit this issue back to lower authorities for verification and it will not serve any purpose. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the ground nos.3 & 4 raised by the assessee."

Core principles established:

• The provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act apply only when the recipient of the loan or advance is a registered or beneficial shareholder holding at least 10% voting power or a concern in which such shareholder has substantial interest. Mere borrowing from sister concerns sharing a common substantial shareholder does not attract deemed dividend provisions.
• Under section 68, the assessee bears the burden to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor and the transaction. Documentary evidence, confirmations, bank statements, and arbitration awards substantiating the transactions can discharge this burden.
• Judicial precedents clarifying the scope of "shareholder" and the applicability of deemed dividend provisions must be carefully applied based on facts.

Final determinations:

• The addition of Rs. 1,81,59,953/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was deleted as the provisions were not attracted.
• The addition of Rs. 10,37,16,000/- under section 68 as unexplained cash credit was deleted as the assessee discharged the burden of proof regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender and the transaction.

---