Shri Dipesh Lalchand Shah, Surat V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-4, Surat

ITSSA 455/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1216 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 DI PE SH LALCHAND SHAH .APPELLANT 102, VISHAL HOUSE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, RING ROAD, SURAT [PAN: AFSPS3839J] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, SURAT . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: RASESH SHAH , FOR THE APPELLANT SANJAY AGARWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 29 , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 28 , 201 5 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM : 1. THESE TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TWO CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 , CHALLENGE CORRECTNESS OF A COMMON ORDER DATED 23 RD MAY 2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DEALING WITH AN ISSUE COMMON TO BOTH OF THESE YEARS, AND WERE HEARD TOGETHER. AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THEREFORE, B OTH OF THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THESE APPEALS, ARE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 8,25,000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND OF RS 60,80,000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, IN RESPECT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 7 3. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE LOANS OF RS 8,25,000 AND RS 69,55,000, DURING THE PERI OD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY. THESE LOANS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, I.E. VISHAL OVERSEAS, AND TH ESE LOANS WERE RECEIVED FROM VISHAL FASHIONS PVT LTD (VSPL, IN SHORT) - A COMPANY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD 28% EQUITY SHAREHOLDING. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT VSPL HAD, IN ITS RESERVES AND SURPLUS, ACCUMULATED PROFITS AGGREGATING TO RS 2,64,87,745 AND RS 2,65 ,07,159 - AT THE RELEVANT POINTS OF TIME RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY. 4. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO NOTICE AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH VISHAL OVERSEAS, HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL PURCHASES FROM VISHAL FASHIONS PVT LTD AND THAT THE ASSESSE E ALSO MADE SALES TO VISHAL FASHIONS PVT LTD IN CERTAIN CASES AND ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SUMS AGAINST THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS . IT WAS THEN SUBMITTED THAT AS ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PURCHASES EQUAL TO THE SUM RECEIVED FROM VISHAL FASHIONS PVT LTD , IT REPAID THE AMOUNT IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) DONOT COME INTO PLAY IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCES MADE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORDINARY BUSINESS WHEN IT IS WARRANTED BY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. A REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS USHA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD (120 TTJ 1004), IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN LOAN IS GIVEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS BY THE COMPANIES, WHICH ARE NO BANKING FIN ANCIAL COMPANIES, SECTION 2(22)(E) IS NOT ATTRACTED . A REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING PVT LTD (318 ITR 476) IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN ADVANCES ARE GIVEN DURI NG THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. IT WAS THEN ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM COMPANY ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 3 OF 7 AND THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E). RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SEAMIST PROPERTIES PVT LTD VS ITO ( 95 TTJ 201), AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) CREATES A LEGAL FICTION AND A DEE MING PROVISION, AND DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE T BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND ITS SCOPE. NONE OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER, IMPRESSED THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED B Y VISHAL FASHIONS PVT LTD, THE COMPANY FROM WHICH THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAD RECEIVED THE LOANS, TWO ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF VISHAL OVERSEAS, THE ASSESSEE S PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN - FIRST, TITLED AS VISHAL OVERSEAS (LOAN) WHICH HAD ONLY LOAN TRANSACTIONS WHEREIN THE MONIES ARE ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE S PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN; AND, - THE OTHER, TITLED AS VISHAL OVERSEAS 102 VISHAL HOUSE , WHICH HAD SALES TRANSACTIONS AND PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THE SALE BILLS ETC. IT WAS THUS NOTED THAT TH ESE TWO TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT WHAT HAS BEEN TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IS THE AGGREGATE OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THE RUNNING BUSINESS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT ALTOGETHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS ONE ACCOUNT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE EITHER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING A CREDIT FACILITY FOR 2 - 3 MONTHS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF RS 1.68 CRORES AND 1.39 CRORES DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS AND THE SALES MADE TO THE VFPL IS SMALL SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADVANCE AGAINST THE SAME. AS FOR THE RELIANCE ON TRIBUNAL S DECISION IN THE CASE OF USHA COMMERCIAL (SUPRA), THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTED THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE VFPL IS NOT A NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY. AS FOR ASSESSEE S RELIANCE ON HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING (SUPRA), THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SINCE THE AD VANCES IN QUESTION WERE NOT GIVEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, THIS DECISION DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS FOR THE ADVANCES BEING IN THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH A SITUATION WOULD ARISE ON LY WHEN THE PERSON I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 4 OF 7 PLACING DEPOSITS HAS SURPLUS FUNDS WHICH IT WANTS TO PLACE AS DEPOSITS BUT THE VFPL HAS DRAWN THE MONEY FROM CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT TO GIVE IT TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THAT THERE HAVE NEGATIVE BANK BALANCES ON THE DATES ON WHICH THESE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN, THESE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE S RELIANCE ON SEAMIST PROPERTIES WAS THUS REJECTED. IT WAS IN THIS BACKGROUND, AND AFTER NOTING THE FACTS REGARDING ASSESSEE S SHAREHOLDING IN VFPL AS ALSO AVAI LABILITY OF RESERVES AND SURPLUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS OF RS 8,25,000 AND RS 69,55,000 UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 TO RS 60,80,000 AS THAT WAS THE MAXIMUM OUTSTANDING AMOUNT I N THE LOAN ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DU LY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS TAKEN PAINS TO TAKE US THROUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE. IT IS HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PERSONAL GUARANTEE AND ALSO COLLATERAL FOR THE LOANS BEING RAISED BY VISHAL FASHIONS PVT LTD, AND THESE ADVANCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS ASSISTANCE. HE THEN TAKES US THROUGH A RECENT JUDGMENT OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF BAGMANE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TAX APPEAL NO. 47 3 OF 2013), TO EMPHASIZE THE POINT THAT LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OR TO A CONCERN, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS DIVIDEND IF SUCH LOAN OR ADVANCE IS GIVEN TO SUCH SHAREHOLDER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATIO N, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMPANY, RECEIVED FROM SUCH A SHAREHOLDER. HE SUBMITS THAT, AS HELD BY HON BLE KARANTAKA HIGH COURT, IN SUCH A CASE, SUCH ADVANCE OR I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 5 OF 7 LOAN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND . HIS ERUDITE AND VERY WELL RESEARCHED ARGUMENT DO NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE SINCE THIS PLEA, BEING TAKEN UP FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THIS STAGE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, LOOKS LIKE MORE OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND SINCE, IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THE VFPL AND THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN AS CONSIDERATION FOR PERSONAL GUARANTEES AND COLLATERAL SECURITIES. UNDOUBTEDLY, WE ARE BOUND BY THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY HON BLE COURTS ABOVE BUT THEN THERE HAS BE SOMETHING MORE THAN EMPTY WORDS TO SHOW THAT THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS EMBEDDED IN THIS CONTENTIONS ARE CORRECT. OUR ATTENTION IS ALSO INVITED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA VS CIT (338 I OTR 538), IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME PROPOSITION BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FOUNDATIONAL FACTS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, OR EVEN INDICATED, THIS DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE EITHER. THE SAME IS THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER CASES. WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS B DHANUNJAYA RAO (140 ITD 443), WAS IN SEISIN OF MATERIALLY IDENTICAL SITUATION IN WHICH DESPITE THE ABOVE LEGAL PLEA, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THE ADVA NCES AND THE GUARANTEES AND COLLATERALS. REJECTING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COORDINATE BENCH OBSERVED, INTER ALIA , AS FOLLOWS: 11. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22)(E) EXIST. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE IT HAS MORTGAGED ITS PROPERTY WITH THE BANK TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO AVAIL FINANCE FAC ILITIES FROM THE BANK, THE ADVANCE BY THE COMPANY IS NOT A GRATUITOUS LOAN OR ADVANCE, BUT IN RETURN FOR AN ADVANTAGE WHICH THE COMPANY HAS ALREADY AVAILED ON ACCOUNT OF MORTGAGING OF PROPERTIES DONE BY THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT T HE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE FACT THAT THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEES WERE ACTUALLY MORTGAGED WITH THE BANK FOR THE SAKE OF AVAILING LOANS BY THE COMPANY. THE LETTER DATED 31.5.2008 OF THE ANDHRA BANK, SUBMITTED IN TH E PAPER - BOOK DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE MORTGAGED WITH THE BANK. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY CORRESPONDENCE MADE EITHER WITH THE BANK OR WITH THE COMPANY TOWARDS RELEASE OF THE PROPERTIES MORTGAGED, AS WAS THE FACT IN THE CASE OF PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACT OF MORTGAGE AND ALSO THE FACT I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 6 OF 7 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REQUESTED THE BANK FOR RELEASE OF THE MORTGAGE, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 12. IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT LONG AFTER THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CLOSED, THE ASSESSEES, ON 5.11.2002, HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ANDHRA BANK DATED 27.9.2012, INDICATING THAT A PROPERTY OF THE DIRECTOR, SMT. B .SEETARATNA M, WAS GIVEN AS A SECURITY TOWARDS CREDIT FACILITY AVAILED BY THE COMPANY. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PETITION BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE TAKEN BY US, WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE . EVEN ACCEPTING THAT LETTER ALSO DOES NOT LEAD US TO ANY CONCLUSION SO FAR AS ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF MORTGAGING THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, AS THE SAID LETTER DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY MORTGAGED WITH THE BANK. THAT APART, THE LANGUAGE OF S.2(22)(E) IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND DOES NOT LEAVE ANY SCOPE FOR INTERPRETING IT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. THE SAID PROVISION BEING A DEEMING PROVISION, IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LANGUAG E CONTAINED THEREIN. AS WE HAVE ALREADY REITERATED HEREINABOVE, THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE COMPANY TOWARDS ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE FULFILS ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 'DIVIDEND' AS ENVISAGED IN S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CAN T BE ANY OTHER CONCLUSION EXCEPTING TO CONSIDER THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEES AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE - LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. 9. WE AGREE W ITH THIS APPROACH. THERE HAS TO BE SOME MATERIAL ON THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS EMBEDDED IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL. THATS NOT THE CASE HERE. IN ANY EVENT, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERY WELL DEMONSTRATE ON THE FACTS OF T HIS CASE, ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR ATTRACTING THE TAXABILITY UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE SATISFIED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE MONIES FROM A COMPANY IN WHICH HE IS THE SHAREHOLDER, THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE SPEC IFIED THRESHOLD LIMIT, THE COMPANY HAS SUFFICIENT ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS AND THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED ARE IN THE NATURE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE PLEA NOW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E. ADVANCES BEING COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL GUARANTEES, IS NOTHING BUT A COVER UP AND UNSUPPORTED BY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE S PLEA THAT THESE ADVANCES IN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY DEMOLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND LEARNED CIT(A) WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THESE FINDINGS. I.T.A. NOS.: 455 AND 456/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE 7 OF 7 WHETHER THESE ADVANCES WERE TO HELP THE ASSESSEE IN OVERCOMING TEMPORARY LIQUIDITY CRISES OR NOT IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE AS LONG AS IT IS IN NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES, AND OTHER PRE - CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILIT Y OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE SATISFIED, SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAXED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD VERY WELL REASONED STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THUS STANDS CONFIRMED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 201 5 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD