Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 314 - AT - Income TaxDeemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - whether the marginal overdrawing/debit balance of the assessee director represented advance or loan to a shareholder and hence covered by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- As there is difference in term loans and advances and the term deposits assessee had not led any evidence before the FAA or us as these were so called deposits. Any correspondence entered into by the assessee and the company evidencing the proof that transaction under consideration were deposits has not been produced. FAA has given a categorical finding that these transaction were loan and advances and all the conditions stipulated by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were fulfilled. The basic conditions substantial interest in the company and loan/advances by the company to the assessee were satisfied and therefore AO and the FAA in the first round and the FAA in the second round of hearing had held that amounts in questions were Deemed Dividends. Besides, proof of utilisation of amounts in question for business of the company were never produced at any stage - onus was on the assessee to prove that loans received by him were for business purposes of the company. Making a claim about non taxability of any amount before the tax authorities and supporting the same with evidences is the logical sequence of events. In the case under consideration assessee has merely made a claim, but same has not been supported by any evidence. Therefore, uphold the orders of the FAA. Cases cited by the assessee are of no help for deciding the issue under consideration. Against assessee.
|