Bombay High Court Allows Revenue Appeal in Deemed Dividend Case Under Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Tribunal's Order Set Aside for Non-Consideration of Provisions and Admission of Borrowing.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 54
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, dated 14.09.2012. The assessee, M/s. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd., filed a return of income declaring Rs.9,88,598/-, which was processed under Section 143(1). During a search at the office of M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd., it was found that M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. had advanced loans to the assessee. The shareholders of M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd., Dr. William Britto and Mrs. Muriel Britto, held 75% and 25% shares respectively, and they also held shares in the assessee company along with M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. in the ratio of 26:26:48. Thus, Dr. William Britto and his wife had more than 10% voting rights in M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. and substantial interest in the assessee company. The Assessing Officer treated the loan amount of Rs.33,55,076/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as the accumulated profits of M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. exceeded that amount. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition, noting that the assessee had admitted borrowing funds from M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. and failed to provide any explanation that the money was received as a normal business transaction. The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition. The High Court found that the Tribunal's order was cryptic and did not consider the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) or the admission of the assessee. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both parties.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Deemed Dividend - Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 - The issue was whether a loan advanced by a company (M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd.) to another company (assessee) where the shareholders of the lending company had substantial interest in the borrowing company, constitutes deemed dividend. The court held that the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition without considering the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) and the fact that the assessee had admitted borrowing funds. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 2-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the amount of Rs.33,55,076/- advanced by M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee M/s. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. constitutes deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 14.09.2012, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits after hearing both parties.

Law Points

  • Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act
  • 1961
  • substantial interest
  • shareholder
  • loan or advance
  • accumulated profits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 153

TAX APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2013

2013-10-08

NARESH H. PATIL, F. M. REIS

Ms. Asha Dessai for Appellant, Mr. S. R. Rivonkar for Respondent

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

M/s. Britto Amusement Pvt Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Remedy Sought

Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's order deleting addition of Rs.33,55,076/- as deemed dividend

Filing Reason

Revenue aggrieved by Tribunal's order allowing assessee's appeal and deleting addition

Previous Decisions

Assessing Officer added Rs.33,55,076/- as deemed dividend; CIT(A) confirmed addition; Tribunal deleted addition

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs.33,55,076/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the provisions and the assessee's admission.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was cryptic and did not consider the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) or the assessee's admission of borrowing funds. Respondent argued that the Tribunal correctly allowed the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal must consider the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee's admission of borrowing funds before deciding whether the amount constitutes deemed dividend.

Judgment Excerpts

The above Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeks to challenge the Order dated 14.09.2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Appellants came to be dismissed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal of the Respondents by coming to the conclusion that in the Order passed under Section 253 for the assessment year 2003-2004 in the case of M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd., the addition was deleted.

Procedural History

Assessing Officer added Rs.33,55,076/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). Assessee appealed to CIT(A) who confirmed the addition. Assessee then appealed to ITAT, Panaji, which allowed the appeal and deleted the addition. Revenue filed appeal under Section 260-A before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 2(22)(e), 143(1), 260-A, 253
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revenue Appeal in Deemed Dividend Case Under Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Tribunal's Order Set Aside for Non-Consideration of Provisions and Admission of Borrowing.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Matrimonial Dispute After Genuine Settlement Between Spouses. The Court held that maintaining conviction under Section 498-A IPC after bona fide settlement would defeat justice and cause financial distress, exercis...