9. In the present case the Tribunal on considering decisions in various cases held as under:
“From the ratio laid down in above cases and on the basis of judicial interpretation of words. ‘Loans’ or ‘Advances’, it can be held that section 2(22)(e)can be applied to ‘Loans’ or ‘Advances’. Simplicitor and not to those transactions carried out in course of business as such. In the course of carrying on business transaction between a company and a stockholder, the company may be required to give advance in mutual interest. There is no legal bar in having such transaction. What is to be ascertained is what is the purpose of such advance. If the amount is given as advance simplicitor or as such per se without any further obligation behind receiving such advances, may be treated is ‘deemed dividend’, but if it is otherwise, the amount given cannot be branded as ‘advances’ . Within the meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Just as per clause (ii) of section 2(22)(e), dividend is not to include advance or loan made by a company in the ordinary course of business where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company advance in the ordinary course of carrying on business cannot be considered as dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). By granting advance if the business purpose of the company is served and which is not the sum, which it otherwise would have distributed as dividend, cannot be brought within the deeming provision of treating such ‘Advance’ as deemed dividend ”
10. We agree with the aforesaid observations. The finding of facts, arrived at by the Tribunal in the present case is that the transaction in question was a business transaction and which transaction would have benefited both the assessee company and M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. In fact, as stated above, the counsel for the appellant has conceded that the amount is in fact not a loan but only an advance because the amount paid to the assessee company would be adjusted against the entitlement of moneys of the assessee company payable by M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. in the subsequent years.
11. The counsel for the appellant has very strenuously urged that neither the Tribunal nor the judgment o f this Court in Rajkumar .s case (supra) deals with that part of the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) which states that deemed dividend does not include an advance or loan made to a shareholder by a company in the ordinary course of its business where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company [Section 2(22)(e)(ii)] i.e. there is no deemed dividend only if the lending of moneys is by a company which is engaged in the business of money lending. Dilating further the counsel for the appellant contended that since M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. is not into the business of lending of money, the payments made by it to the assessee company would therefore be covered by Section 2(22)(e)(ii) and consequently payments even for business transactions would be a deemed dividend. We do not agree. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect as reproduced in para (9) above. The provision of Section 2(22)(e)(ii) is basically in the nature of an explanation. That cannot however, have bearing on interpretation of the main provision of Section 2(22)(e) and once it is held that the business transactions does not fall within Section 2(22)(e), we need not to go further to Section 2(22)(e)(ii). The provision of Section 2(22)(e)(ii) gives an example only of one of the situations where the loan/advance will not be treated as a deemed dividend, but that .s all. The same cannot be expanded further to take away the basic meaning, intent and purport of the main part of Section 2(22)(e). We feel that this interpretation of ours is in accordance with the legislative intention of introducing Section 2(22)(e) and which has been extensively dealt with by this Court in the judgment in Raj Kumar .s case(supra). This Court in Raj Kumar .s case (supra) extensively referred to the report of the Taxation Enquiry Commission and the speech of the Finance Minister in the Budget while introducing the Finance Bill. Ultimately, this Court in the said judgment held as under:
“10.3 A bare reading of the recommendations of the Commission and the Speech of the then Finance Minister would show that the purpose of insertion of clause (e) to section 2(6A) in the 1922 Act was to bring within the tax net monies paid by closely held companies to their principal shareholders in the guise of loans and advances to avoid payment of tax.
10.4 Therefore, if the said background is kept in mind, it is clear that sub-clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Act, which is pari material with clause (e) of section 2(6A) of the 1922 Act, plainly seeks to bring within the tax net accumulated profits which are distributed by closely held companies to its shareholders in the form of loans. The purpose being that persons who manage such closely held companies should not arrange their affairs in a manner that they assist the shareholders in avoiding the payment of taxes by having these companies pay or distribute, what would legitimately be dividend in the hands of the shareholders, money in the form of an advance or loan.
10.5 If this purpose is kept in mind then, in our view, the word ‘advance’ has to be read in conjunction with the word ‘loan’. Usually attributes of a loan are that it involves positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money as loan: it generally carries an interest and there is an obligation of repayment. On the other hand, in its widest meaning the term ‘advance’ may or may not include lending. The word ‘advance’ if not found in the company of or in conjunction with a word ‘loan’ may or may not include the obligation of repayment. If it does then it would be a loan. Thus, arises the conundrum as to what meaning one would attribute to the term ‘advance’. The rule of construction to our minds which answers this conundrum is noscitur a sociis. The said rule has been explained both by the Privy Council in the of Angus Robertson v. George Day (1879) 5 AC 63 by observing “it is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them” and our Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1991 SC 754 and State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha A IR 1960 SC 610.”
12. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts advanced for business transaction between the parties, namely, the assessee company and M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. was not such to fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The present appeal is therefore dismissed.