DEEPAK SOOD,NEW DELHI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05, NEW DELHI

ITA 5867/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appellants, Shri Gautam Bali and Shri Deepak Sood, who are shareholders in M/s. Vestige Marketing Private Limited. The Income Tax Department had disallowed certain purchase claims of the company, treating them as bogus, and subsequently added a portion of this amount as deemed dividends in the hands of the appellants under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The appellants contested this addition, leading to the current appeals. The Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) and the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the company had made any payments classified as advances or loans to the appellants.

• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner v. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 147; 143(3); 37; 2(22)(e)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5860 to 5866 with ITA Nos. 7894 to 7900 /Del./2025 A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 Shri Gautam Bali EC 16, Inderpuri, Inderpuri, Inderpuri, Central Delhi- 110012 Delhi, India PAN: ACEPR4989H Vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 05, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)/ Cross Appellant ITA Nos. 5867 to 5873 with ITA Nos. 7868 to 7874 /Del./2025, A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 & 2024-25 Shri Deepak Sood, A-89, Okhla Industries Area, Okhla Industrial Estate, S.O., Tehkhand, South East Delhi-110020 New Delhi PAN: AVAPS1551R Vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 05, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)/ Cross Appellant Assessee by Shri Amit Goel, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5867 to 5873/Del/2025 ITA No.7868 to 7874 /Del/2025 ITA No. 5860 to 5866/Del/2025 ITA No. 7894 to7900/Del/2025 2 Date of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement 25/03/2026 ORDER PER BENCH: These twin assessees S/Sh. Gautam Bali and Shri Deepak Sood have filed their seven appeals each i.e. ITA Nos. 5860 to 5873 /Del./2025, along with the Revenue’s as many cross appeals thereto ITA Nos. 7868 to 7874/Del./2025 and ITA Nos.7894 to 7900 /Del./2025 for A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2024-25 against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, seven orders all dated 28.11.2025 and 19.09.2025, assessee-wise respectively, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both these assessees as well as the department that there arises the identical sole substantive ground for the tribunal’s apt adjudication i.e correctness of the learned lower authorities addition making Section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition in the taxpayers’ hands; in assessment order(s) as partly upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5867 to 5873/Del/2025 ITA No.7868 to 7874 /Del/2025 ITA No. 5860 to 5866/Del/2025 ITA No. 7894 to7900/Del/2025 3 4. We are further informed that both these assessees Shri Gautam Bali and Shri Deepak Sood hold 60 and 17% stake; respectively, in a company namely M/s. Vestige Marketing Private Limited. And that the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) had framed assessment in the said company’s case disallowing its purchases claim of Rs. 8, 86,36,574/- as bogus ones u/s 37 of the Act in the “lead” A.Y. 2018-19. He thereafter treated 80% of the said disallowance amount; coming to Rs. 7,09,09,259/-as cash generated from the alleged bogus purchases as representing dividend distributed by the company to both these directors/ shareholders. The CIT(A) lower appellate discussion on the other hand appears to have relied upon his quantum order in the said company’s case(s) wherein he had partly upheld the aforesaid bogus purchases addition to conclude that the crossponding 80% of the remaining addition amount would now be added as deemed dividend in these twin assesseees hands. 5. It is in this factual backdrop that both these assessees are aggrieved against the lower authority’s action treating the foregoing bogus purchases disallowance as deemed dividends added in their hands whereas the Revenue’s case is that we ought to uphold the same in entirety. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both these assessees as well as the Revenues respective stands. We find no merit Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5867 to 5873/Del/2025 ITA No.7868 to 7874 /Del/2025 ITA No. 5860 to 5866/Del/2025 ITA No. 7894 to7900/Del/2025 4 in the Revenue’s arguments justifying impugned deemed dividend addition. This is for the precise reason that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act itself makes it clear that the same gets attracted in an instance of “any payment by a company i.e. “M/s. Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd.”, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder”. We wish to reiterate here that there is no material in the records indicating M/s. Vestige Marketing Private Limited to have actually made any such payment of advance(s) or loan to both these directors/ promoters. It is thus a case wherein the learned departmental authorities have proceeded on mere assumptions and presumptions to hold that the aforesaid bogus purchases disallowance as dividend distribution which is not sustainable in light of Commissioner v. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) propounding stricter interpretation of a fiscal statute. With thus accept both these assessees’ sole identical substantive ground directed against the impugned Section 2(22) (e) addition of deemed dividend addition which is deleted in entirety. The Revenue’s stand supporting the same is declined in very terms. 7. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 8. To sum up, both these assessee’s seven appeals each ITA No. 5860 to 5873/Del./2025 are allowed and the Revenue’s as many cross appeals ITA Nos. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5867 to 5873/Del/2025 ITA No.7868 to 7874 /Del/2025 ITA No. 5860 to 5866/Del/2025 ITA No. 7894 to7900/Del/2025 5 7868 to 7874/Del./2025 and 7894 to 7900 /Del./2025; are dismissed in foregoing terms. A copy of this common order placed in the respectively case files. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:25.03.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi. 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "