DCIT, Central Circle-5,, Hyderabad v. G. Saibabu,, Hyderabad

CO 90/HYD/2012 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 9022523 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ACWPG4794R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number CO 90/HYD/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Central Circle-5,, Hyderabad
Respondent G. Saibabu,, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 06-06-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 TO 4 1044 1045 1046 & 1109/H/11 2004-05 TO 2007- 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 HYDERABAD G. SAIBABU HYDERABAD. (PAN ACWPG4794R) AND S.NO. C.O. NO. AY CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 1 TO 4 90 91 92 & 93/H/12 (IN 1044 1045 1046 & 1109/H/11) 2004-05 TO 2007- 08 G. SAIBABU HYDERABAD. (PAN ACWPG4794R) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 HYDERABAD AND S.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 TO 4 1047 1107 1048 & 1108/H/11 2004-05 TO 2007- 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 HYDERABAD. SMT. G. SAILAJA HYDERABAD. (PAN ABKPG4036H) AND S.NO. C.O. NO. AY CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 1 TO 4 94 95 96 & 97/H/12 (IN 1047 1107 1048 & 1108/H/11) 2004-05 TO 2007- 08 SMT. G. SAILAJA HYDERABAD. (PAN ABKPG4036H) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 HYDERABAD. REVENUE BY : SHRI MPB REDDY (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2013 2 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN J.M. : THESE APPEALS PERTAINING TO TWO ASSESSEES FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A)-VII HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007- 08. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO FILED C.OS. AS IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND C.OS. THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE WE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO D ISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS AND C.OS. BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER . ITA NOS. 1044 1045 1046 & 1109/H/11 IN CASE OF G. SAIBABU 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SE IZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7.11.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.13 93 080/- WHICH IS THE INTEREST EX PENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS N OT FULLY UTILISED FOR THEIR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 3. WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE THE ASSESSING O FFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 36 14 010/- TOWARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND UN DER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IDENTIFIED FOR PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPMENT INTO TOWN SHIPS. DUE TO A.P. AGRICULTUR E LAND CEILING ACT WHICH RESTRICTS HOLDINGS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND I N RANGA REDDY DISTRICT UPTO AC.54.00 ONLY THE COMPANY EVOLVED A SCHEME BY WHICH IT AUTHORISED SOME OF ITS DIRECTORS AND SISTE R COMPANIES TO 3 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA ACQUIRE THE LAND ON ITS BEHALF. AFTER CONVERTING TH E LAND INTO NON- AGRICULTURE PURPOSES THAT IS TO DEVELOP THE PROPER TY INTO RESIDENTIAL PLOTS THE COMPANY HAD ENTERED INTO MEM ORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH DIRECTORS AND SISTER COMPA NIES COST TO COST BASIS WITHOUT ELEMENT OF PROFIT THE COMPANY D EVELOPED 300 ACRES OF LAND IN A PHASED MANNER ADOPTING THE SCHEM E OF AUTHORISING ITS DIRECTORS AND SISTERS COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE LAND LESS THAN 54 ACRES EACH. ALL SALE PROCEEDS OF THE DEVELOPED PROPERTY WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE COMPANIES BOOKS. AS THE COMPANY HAS BEEN SELLING PLOTS AT DIFFERENT LOCATIO NS AND UNDER DIFFERENT SURVEY NUMBERS IT COULD NOT RECONCILE TH E LAND ADVANCES LYING WITH THE DIRECTORS AND SISTER COMPANIES. HOWE VER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CASH FLOW STATEMENTS AND ALSO HO W ADVANCES WERE UTILISED FOR ACQUIRING THE LAND IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THA T THE ADVANCES TAKEN FROM COMPANY BY THE DIRECTORS IS NOT AS LOANS FOR REPAYMENT PURPOSES BUT ARE ADVANCES TAKEN FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE TREATED SUCH ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY AS DEEMED D IVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 . 5. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJKUMAR VI KRANJIT SEN AND RAJIV SHAKDHER APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2007 (DECIDED ON 14 TH MAY 2009) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING PVT. LTD. APPEAL NO. ITA.250/2009 (DECIDED ON SEPTEMBER 22 2009) ARE RELEVANT TO THAT OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TRADE AD VANCES DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22 )(E) OF THE ACT. 4 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI OBSERVED THAT COPY A THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FACILITATED WITH THE FUNDS BY THE COMPANY M/S. JAYALAXMI HOUSING PVT. LTD. FOR THE PURCHASE OF LANDS AT A LOW COST IN HIS NAME AND ENA BLING THE COMPANY TO PROCURE THE LANDS SUBSEQUENTLY FROM HIM WHICH WOULD BENEFIT THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE DI RECTOR. THE AMOUNTS SO FACILITATED AS ADVANCE CANNOT BE CATEGOR ISED AS LOAN AS THEY ARE NOT BACKED-UP BY ANY REPAYMENT SCHEDULE NOR THE ADVANCES CARRY ANY INTEREST COMMITMENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT : IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS TRANSACTION BETWEEN A COMPANY AND A STOCKHOLDER THE COMPANY MAY BE REQUI RED TO GIVE ADVANCE IN MUTUAL INTEREST. BY GRANTING ADV ANCE IF THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE COMPANY IS SERVED THE A DVANCE CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE DEEMING PROVISION OF T REATING SUCH ADVANCE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. JUST AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 2(22)(E) DIVIDE ND IS NOT TO INCLUDE ADVANCE OR LOAN MADE BY A COMPANY IN THE OR DINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS WHERE THE LENDING OF MONEY IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AD VANCE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E). 6. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVE N ADVANCES BY THE COMPANY AS TRADE ADVANCES TOWARDS PROCURING LANDS AT LOWER COST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND WERE PUREL Y MEANT FOR BENEFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY I.E. PROCURI NG LANDS AT LOWER COST ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE F URTHER 5 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA SUBSTANTIATED HIS STAND BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE I.T.A.T. HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MARC MANUFACTURES PV T. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA.NO.1162 1163 & 1166/HYD/2008 APRIL 13 2010 (2010) 5 TAXMANN.COM 7 (HYD. ITAT). 7. THE CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HELD AS UNDER : 5.1. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IT IS SUBM ITTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISTAKEN THE ADVANCES TAKEN FROM THE COMPANY AS LOANS AND HAS CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE COMPAN Y THROUGH A RUNNING ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTU RAL LANDS AND THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT CONVERTS THE SAI D LANDS INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND LATER ON ENTE RS INTO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COMPANY ON COST TO COST BASIS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PLOTS. THEREFORE TAKING ADVANCES FROM THE COMPANY IS NOT A LOAN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT . IT HAS TO BE FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IS PAID C ERTAIN AMOUNT BYT EH COMPANY WHICHIS ONLY IN ORDINARY COUR SE OF BUSINESS HENCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS LOANS OR ADVANCES. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE COMPANY MAKES PAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT ONLY FOR CARRYING ON COMPANYS REGULAR BUSINESS. THEREFORE IT APPEARS T HAT THE ADVANCES TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOAN FROM THE COMPANY. HENCE HAVING VERIFIED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D AFTER PERUSING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED. 8. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED C.OS. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI S.RAMA RAO FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT NET PROFIT WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR GIVING LOAN TO THE PERSONS AND THE 6 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA LOAN WAS NOT GIVEN FROM ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A CHART WITH RESPECT TO SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT AND ACCUMULATED PROFITS WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS : ASST. YEAR TOTAL RESERVES SHARE PREMIUM BALANCE IN P&L 2004-05 0 60 23 354 2005-06 2 63 06 000 91 67 523 2006-07 1 78 89 300 2 31 73 079 2007-08 0 277 62 109 AY 2004-05 : THE ACCUMULATED BALANCE AS ON 01/042004 WAS RS.60 23 354/-. THE ADVANCES PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS RS. 4 10 24 695/-. THERE IS NO DISTRIBUTABLE PR OFIT. FURTHER THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIF E WAS ALSO FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE PROVISIONS F SECTION 2(22)(E) HAVE NO APPLICATION. AY 2005-06 : THE TOTAL RESERVES OF RS. 3 54 73 523 INCLUDES SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 2 63 06 000/- WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DEEMED DIVIDEND AND THE BALANCE WAS ONLY RS. 91 67 523/-. THE ADVANCES PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS RS. 3 45 36 251/-. THERE IS NO DISTRIBUTABLE PROFIT . FURTHER THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WAS AL SO FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E ) HAVE NO APPLICATION. AY 2006-07 : THE TOTAL RESERVES OF RS. 4 10 62 379/- INCLUDES SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 1 78 89 300/- WHICH C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DEEMED DIVIDEND AND THE BALANCE W AS ONLY RS. 2 31 73 79/-. THE ADVANCES PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS RS. 21 83 30 995/-. THERE IS NO DISTRIBUTABLE P ROFIT. FURTHER THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIF E WAS ALSO FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E) HAVE NO APPLICATION. AY 2007-08 : THE TOTAL RESERVES OF RS. 2 77 62 109/- INCLUDES ONLY ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS. 2 77 62 109 /- DOES NOT INCLUDE SHARE PREMIUM. THE ADVANCES PAID FOR PU RCHASE OF LAND WAS RS. 39 71 40 393/-. THERE IS NO DISTRIB UTABLE PROFIT. FURTHER THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE WAS ALSO FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) HAVE NO APPLICATION. 7 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE U S THAT THE ADVANCES PAID TO LANDLORDS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF 319 ITR 439 AND 105 TTJ 411 (DEL.) 26 I TD 520 (HYD.) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CA SE OF 328 ITR THE SPECIAL LEAVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT SHARE PREMIUM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 2(2 2)(E) OF THE ACT. 11. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON 53 ITR 108 (S C) AND 116 TTJ 791 SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE A MOUNTS WHICH ARE AS SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE COMPANY HAS IDENTIFIED A LAR GE EXTENT OF PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPMENT INTO TOWN-SHIP AS THE AGRI CULTURE LAND HOLDING IN RANGA REDDY DISTRICT CANNOT EXCEED AC.54 .00 DUE TO A.P. AGRICULTURE LAND CEILING ACT. THE ASSESSEE EVO LVED A SCHEME BY WHICH THE COMPANY COULD DEVELOP LAY OUTS IN 300 ACRES OF LAND. THE COMPANY AUTHORIZED SOME OF ITS DIRECTORS AND SISTER COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE LAND ON ITS BEHALF. THE ASSESS EE WAS FACILITATED WITH THE FUNDS BY THE COMPANY JAYALAXMI HOUSING PVT. LTD. FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS IN HIS NAME. THE COMPANY PROCURED THE LAND SUBSEQUENTLY FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION THE AMOUNTS GIVEN AS ADVANCES CANNOT BE CATEGORISED AS LOAN AS THERE IS NO REPAYMENT SCHEDULE AND THE ADVANCES DID NOT CARRY A NY INTEREST. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ONLY THE PAYMENTS MADE BY A COMPANY BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SH AREHOLDER IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND . PAYMENT MADE BY A COMPANY THROUGH A RUNNING ACCOUNT IN DISC HARGE OF ITS 8 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA EXISTING DEBTS OR AGAINST PURCHASE OR FOR AVAILING SERVICES SUCH PAYMENTS MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS CA RRIED ON BY BOTH THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIV IDEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 2(22)(E). THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT BUSINESS TRANSACTION BETWEEN RELATED PARTIES AND THEREFORE PAYMENT MADE IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE TREATED AS LOANS AND ADVANCES. THEREFORE PAYMENT MADE BY A COMPANY IN T HE COURSE OF CARRYING OF HIS REGULAR BUSINESS THROUGH A MUTUA L OPEN TO A RELATED PARTY DO NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 2(22)(E). 13. THEREFORE THE TRADE ADVANCE DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND ADVANCES IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ADVANCES BY THE COMPAN Y TOWARDS PROCURING LANDS AT LOWER COST ON BEHALF OF THE COMP ANY AND WAS PURELY MEANT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. 1. ACIT VS. CLOUGH ENGINEERS LTD. 130 ITD 137 (DEL.)( SB) 2. ACIT VS. SANJIV GUPTA 143 TTJ PAGE 25 (CHAND.) 3. CIT VS. RAJKUMAR 318 ITR 462 (DEL.) 14. WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNTS WHICH ARE SHARE PREMIUM THE COORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLL OWS : SUB-S. (2) OF S. 78 OF THE COMPANIES ACT MENTIONS FIVE PURPOSES FOR WHICH ALONE THE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT MAY BE APPLIED WITHOUT ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CO MPANIES ACT RELATING TO THE REDUCTION OF THE SHARE .CAPITAL. EX CEPT IN THESE FIVE CASES ANY OTHER APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF TH E SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT WILL BE TREATED AS A REDUCTION OF T HE COMPANY'S SHARE CAPITAL AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE C OMPANIES ACT DEALING WITH THIS SUBJECT STAND ATTRACTED. WHEN THERE IS A STATUTORY BAR ON THE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT BEING US ED FOR 9 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEND THE DEEMING PROVISION OF S. 2(22)(E) CANNOT APPLY. NOT ONLY IS THERE A PROHIBITION ON TH E DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT AS DIVIDEND UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT THE SAME IS OBLIGED TO BE TREATED AS PART OF T HE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY AND THIS IS MADE CLEAR IN S. 78(1) OF THE COMPANIES ACT WHICH SAYS THAT ANY PAYMENT OUT OF TH E SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES AUTHORISED BY SUB-SO (2) WILL BE TREATED AS REDUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT IN RELATION THERETO . THIS PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT TAKES CARE OF THE AR GUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT S. 2(22)(E) DOES NOT USE THE EXPRESSION 'WHETHER CAPITALIZED OR NOT'. THESE WORDS CAN HAVE APPLICATION ONLY WHERE THE PROFITS ARE CAPABLE OF BEING CAPITAL IZED. THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE RECEIPT IN QUESTION FO RMS PART OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT CANNOT BE STATED TO BE COMMERCIAL PROFITS IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE T ERM HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 85 821 ALONE OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25 42 7 72 CAN BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S. 2(22)(E). - CIT VS. URMILA RAMESH (1998) 146 CTR (SC) 81 : (1998) 230 I TR 422 (SC) P.K. BADIANI VS. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 466 : (197 6) 105 ITR 642 (SC) AND CIT VS. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD. AIR 1969 S C 1058 RELIED ON. 15. FURTHER THERE IS NO DISTRIBUTABLE PROFIT AS BR OUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE TAKING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME UNDER PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND HENCE APPEALS FILE D BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEALS BY UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION THE C.OS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOM E INFRUCTUOUS THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 10 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA 17. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CASE OF G. SAIBABU ARE DISMISSED AND C.OS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E G. SAIBABU ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1047 1107 1048 & 1108/H/11 IN CASE OF G. SAILAJA 18. AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE MATERI ALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE OF G. SAIBUBABU( SUPRA) FOLLOW ING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREIN WE DISMISS THE APPEALS F ILED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE. 19. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEALS BY UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION THE C.OS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOM E INFRUCTUOUS THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 20. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CASE OF G. SAILAJA ARE DISMISSED AND C.OS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E G. SAILAJA ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 21. TO SUM UP APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CASE OF G. SAIBABU AND G. SAILAJA AND C.OS. FILED BY THE ASSES SEES G. SAIBABU AND G. SAILAJA ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY 2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATE 31 ST JULY 2013. VBP/- 11 SHRI G. SAIBABU & SMT. G. SAILAJA COPY TO 1. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 HYDERABAD 2. SRI G. SAIBABU AND SMT. G. SAILAJA PLOT NO.1246 ROAD NO.62 JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-VII HYDERABAD 4. CIT (CENTRAL) HYDERABAD 5. DR A BENCH SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INITIALS 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 01-05-13 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER -05-13 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER J.M. 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER A.M. 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILES GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER