Afsana Begum Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Deemed dividend year mismatch unsettled: ITAT Guwahati remands 2(22)(e) issue for fresh examination
Guwahati Tribunal set aside order of CIT(A)/NFAC confirming addition of ₹2.25 crore u/s 2(22)(e) & restored matter for de-novo adjudication. Tribunal noted that Assessee contended no loan or advance was received during AY 2020-21 & that the impugned amount pertained to an earlier year, whereas AO had treated outstanding balance as deemed dividend merely because Assessee was a director with substantial shareholding & company had sufficient accumulated profits. Tribunal observed that CIT(A) proceeded mainly on commercial expediency / business necessity arguments, rejected Board resolution as unreliable, but failed to examine the core issue as to the year of receipt of loan, which is decisive for invoking s.2(22)(e). Since facts relating to timing of loan, nature of transaction & applicability year were not properly examined, Tribunal held that matter requires fresh consideration. Accordingly, CIT(A) order was set aside with direction to re-adjudicate issue on merits, follow Rule 46A, give opportunity to AO if required & pass a speaking order. Appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 28.03.2025.
