Smt. Radha Daga, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 201/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6245 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Deemed dividend; Validity of assessment; Commercial expediency; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALA BENCH, CHEN NAI . , ! '! ! #, $ % BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 SMT.RADHA DAGA, NO.7M, NITYASREE, NO.51, CHAMIERS ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI-600 018 [PAN: ADGPR 9527 G] ( #& /APPELLANT) VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , COMPANY CIRCLE-I(3), CHENNAI-600 034 ( '(#& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADV / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P.JACOB, ADDL.CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 02-04-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-06-2014 ) / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2003-04 & 2004-05 AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI DATE D 21-11-2013 COMMON FOR BOTH THE AYS. THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF GARMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDIN G IN ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 2 M/S.CHEMISE EXPORTS PVT. LTD., (HEREIN AFTER REFERR ED TO AS CEPL) AND M/S.CHEMISE INDUS PVT. LTD., (HEREIN AFTER REFE RRED TO AS CIPL). 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.2003-04 ON 10-11-2003 DISCLOSING HER INCOME AS ` 36,46,291/- AND FOR THE AY.2004-05, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-10-2004 DISCLOSING HER INCOME AS ` 68,58,150/-. FOR BOTH THE AYS, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) O N 24-02-2006 AND 26-09-2006 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FOR BOTH THE AYS I.E., 2003-04 & 2004-05 WERE RE-OPENED AFTE R FOUR YEARS. NOTICE U/S.148 FOR RE-OPENING ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY .2003-04 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31-03-2010 AND FOR AY.200 4-05 NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 25-03-2011. THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENI NG AS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE DT.31-03-2010 IS AS UNDER: LOAN OF ` 50,00,000/- LAKHS RECEIVED BY CIPL FROM CEPL IS TO BE TAXED PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E). HOWEVER, NO SUCH REASON HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN NOTIC E DT.25-03- 2011 U/S.148 FOR AY.2004-05. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVIN G 90% SHAREHOLDING IN CEPL AND 54% IN CIPL. CEPL IS HAVI NG 35% ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 3 SHAREHOLDING IN CIPL. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT T O THE AY.2003- 04, CEPL HAD ADVANCED LOAN OF ` 50.00 LAKHS TO CIPL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AGAINST ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVIN G SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN CIPL, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E ) ARE ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED LOAN OF ` 50.00 LAKHS IN AY.2003-04 AND ` 120.00 LAKHS IN AY.2004-05 ADVANCED BY THE CEPL TO CIPL AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND MADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S .143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS, THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S.2(22)(E) IN THE CASE OF CIPL FOR BOTH THE AYS. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE AYS. 3. SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS WITHOUT VALID REASONS IS BAD IN LAW. TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 4 SHOW FROM RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOS ED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT CEPL IS NOT ONLY CREDITOR OF CIPL BUT IS ALSO HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDING (35%) IN CIPL. BOT H THE COMPANIES ARE COMPLEMENTING EACH OTHERS BUSINESS A ND THE LOANS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BU SINESS. RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED AS A RES ULT OF CHAGE OF OPINION. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, T HE LD.COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. ITA NO.586/MDS/2012 IN THE CASE OF QMAX TEST EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT DECIDED ON 05-07-2013. II. FARIDA HOLDINGS P. LTD., VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 51 SOT 452 (CHENNAI); III. CIT VS. CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING P.LTD., REPORTED AS 318 ITR 476 (DEL); AND IV. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES P. LTD., VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 343 ITR 141 (DEL). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SHAJI P.JACOB, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS). THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN GRAN TING OF THE ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 5 LOAN. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLD ING OF 54% IN CIPL AND THUS THE AMOUNT ADVANCED AS LOAN BY CEPL T O CIPL FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS RE-OPENING, THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE IS SUE RELATING TO DEEMED DIVIDEND WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE NO OPINION WAS FORMED, THERE WA S NO QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECI SIONS ON WHICH LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE. T HE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 AFTER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. THE SECOND GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE U/S.2(22)(E) BY TREATING UN-SECURED LOAN ADVAN CED BY CEPL TO CIPL AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE APPEAL ON MERITS, WE FIR ST DECIDE THE ISSUE OF RE-OPENING U/S.147 BEYOND THE PERIOD O F FOUR YEARS. ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 6 HERE, IT IS NECESSARY TO RE-PRODUCE THE RELEVANT PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT: SECTION 147 . IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER [HAS REASON TO BELIEVE ] THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, O R RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTION S 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR) : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THI S SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REAS ON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DIS CLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSE SSMENT , FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. A CLOSE READING OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE AC T MAKES IT UN-AMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN UN DER THE SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS UNLESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 7 TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO FILE RETURN U/S.139 OR IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.142(1) /148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRU LY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THAT AY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN I NITIATED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS IN BOTH THE AYS I.E ., AY.2003-04 AND 2004-05. NOTICES U/S.148 FOR RE-OPENING THE AS SESSMENT FOR THE AY.2003-04 & 2004-05 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E ON 31-03- 2010 AND 25-03-2011 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF NOTICES U/S.148 FOR BOTH THE A YS. 6. A PERUSAL OF NOTICE U/S.148 DT.31-03-2010 FOR AY .2003-04 AT PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS GIVEN REASONS WHICH ARE RE-PRODUCED IN PARA NO. 2 ABOVE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147, RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS BEYOND FOUR YEARS CAN ONLY BE INITIATED IF THE ASSE SSES HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR THAT AY. THE NOTICE AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.24-12-201 0 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 FOR AY.2003-05 DOES NOT MENTIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED MATERIAL FACTS OR HAS NOT FU LLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS THEREBY RESULTING IN E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 8 OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IT WAS DURING THE SCRUTINY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF CEPL FOR AY.2006-07 & 2007- 08 IT TRANSPIRED THAT DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 CEPL HAD GRANTED A LOAN OF ` 50.00 LAKHS TO CIPL. FOR AY.2004-05, THE NOTICE U/S.148 READS AS UNDER: WHERE AS I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. I, THEREFORE, PROPOSE TO RE-ASSESS THE INCOME FOR T HE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND I HEREBY REQUIRE YOU TO DELIVER TO ME WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE, A RETURN IN TH E PRESCRIBED FORM OF YOUR INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH YOU ARE ASSESSAB LE FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN AY.2004-05 AS WELL THE REVENUE HAS NOT ALLEGED T HAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DISCLOSURE O R CONCEALMENT OF FULL AND TRUE FACTS NECESSARY FOR AS SESSMENT. 7. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI SAKTHI TEXTILES LTD., VS. JCIT REPORTED AS 340 ITR 144 (MADRAS) HAS HELD THAT, IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N 147 OF THE ACT, APART FROM STATING THAT THERE WERE REASONS FOR THE AUTHORITY TO BELIEVE THAT THERE HAD BEEN ESCAPEMENT OF CHARGEABL E INCOME, IT ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 9 SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN RECORDED THAT SUCH ESCAPEMENT WAS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND T RULY ALL MATERIAL PARTICULARS NECESSARY FOR THAT AY. SUCH RECORDING IS ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY . FURTHER, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FENNER (INDIA) LTD., VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 241 ITR 672 (MAD) HAS HELD: WHENEVER A NOTICE IS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUCH NOTICE BEING ISSUED WITHOUT R ECORDING THE REASONS FOR HIS BELIEF THAT INCOME ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED IN LAW THAT THERE IS ALSO A FAIL URE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURNS REFERRED T O IN THE PROVISO OR A FAILURE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE THE MATERI AL FACTS. THE REASONS REFERRED TO IN THE MAIN PARAGRAPH OF SECTIO N 147 WOULD, IN CASES WHERE THE PROVISO IS ATTRACTED, INCLUDE RE ASONS REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISO AND IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD THAT ANY ONE OR ALL THE CIRCUMSTA NCES REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISO EXISTED BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 147. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF E.I. DUPONT INDIA PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 351 ITR 299 (DEL). 8. FOR THE AYS.2003-04 AS WELL AS 2004-05, THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3). SINCE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS WERE DONE FOR BOTH THE AYS, IT IS PRESU MED THAT THE ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 10 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE RECORDS PLAC ED BEFORE HIM. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., [2010] REPORTED AS 256 ITR 1 (DEL) (FB) HAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETES THE ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, HE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE ACCEP TED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF THERE IS NO EXP RESS REFERENCE TO THEM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IF WITHIN TWO Y EARS HE ISSUES A NOTICE TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOTHING B UT A CHANGE OF OPINION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [IN 32 0 ITR 561 (SC)] AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH HAS HELD THAT A CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE INTRODUCED IN THE GARB OF RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH WOULD BE NOTHING BUT A REVIEW, WHICH POWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT POSSESS. THE HONBL E HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.1 43(3) MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE ONE PASSED AFTER FULL SCRUTINY AND F ORMATION OF OPINION IN POINTS RAISED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT TO INITI ATE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT AY UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT. HERE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 11 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TRAVEL BEYO ND HIS JURISDICTION AND INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 47 BY IGNORING MANDATORY CONDITIONS SET OUT IN PROVISO TO THE SECT ION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. THUS, THE RE-ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE AYS ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ARE THUS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(AP PEALS) WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE U/S.2(22)(E) ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING UN-SECURED LOAN OF ` 50.00 LAKHS IN AY.2003-04 AND ` 120.00 LAKHS IN AY.2004-05 MADE BY CEPL TO CIPL AS DEEMED DIVIDE ND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUBS TANTIAL INTEREST IN BOTH THE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE IS HA VING 90% SHAREHOLDING IN CEPL AND 54% SHAREHOLDING IN CIPL. CEPL IS ALSO HAVING 35% SHAREHOLDING IN CIPL. THUS, CIPL I S A SUBSIDIARY OF CEPL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 4 OF THE COMP ANIES ACT, 1956. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY CEPL TO CIPL IN THE N ORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTIO N OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT BOTH THE ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 12 COMPANIES ARE IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AND ARE COMPLEMENTING THE BUSINESS OF EACH OTHER. CEPL APA RT FROM THE FACT, IT HAS ADVANCED LOAN TO CIPL IS ALSO THE HOLD ING COMPANY OF CIPL. IT HAS INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OF ITS SUBSI DIARY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THE SUMS WERE ADVANCED BY CEPL TO CIPL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE PERSONAL G AINS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF FARIDA HOLDINGS P. LTD., VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHILE ADJUDICATING SIMILAR ISSUE HAS HELD THAT WHERE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS A RE CARRIED ON BY AN ASSESSEE IN ITS ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS W ITH ITS SUBSIDIARY, THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDE ND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING P.LTD., (SUPRA) WHILE AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED FOR BUS INESS TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE OT HER COMPANY DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF DEEME D DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E). ITA NOS. 201 & 202/MDS/2014 13 11. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) U/S.2(22)(E) ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 2 ND JUNE, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ('! ! #) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIKAS AWASTHY) $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, ! /DATED: 2 ND JUNE, 2014 TNMM ' #$%&'& /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ' ' ()* /CIT(A) 4. ' ' ( /CIT 5. &+,$$-. /DR 6. ,/01 /GF