1. This appeal challenges the order dated April 16, 2013 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) confirming the deletion of addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (the Act). The assessment year is 2007-08.
2. Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration :
"(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,24,45,000 being loan received by the assessee-company from M/s. Arco Eletro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. taxable, as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the pro visions of section 2(22)(e) are squarely applicable to the assessee's case as also clarified in Central Board of Direct Taxes's Circular No. 495, dated September 22, 1987 ?"
(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that deemed dividend is tax able only in the hands of the shareholders and not in the hands of non-shareholders relying on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Asst. CIT v. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (AT) 146 (Mumbai) [SB] ; [2009] 27 SOT 270 (Mum) [SB] as approved by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech P. Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 14 (Delhi) without appreciating that the ratio of the decision in the above cited cases has not been accepted by the Revenue and has been contested before the hon'ble Supreme Court ?"
3. The respondent-assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 2.24 crores from M/s. Arco Electro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The respondent-assessee was not a shareholder of M/s. Arco Electro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. However, two of its shareholders held shares in excess of 10 per cent. in M/s. Arco Electro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue has sought to tax the amount of Rs. 2.24 crores taken as a loan by the respondent-assessee as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
4. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by its impugned order under challenge. It relied on the case of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Asst. CIT v. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR (AT) 146 (Mumbai) [SB] ; [2009] 27 SOT 270 (Mum) [SB].
5. Mr Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue, very fairly states that the issue raised in the present case is no longer res integra as this court in the case of CIT v. Impact Containers P. Ltd. reported in [2014] 367 ITR 346 (Bom) and in the case of CIT v. Universal Medicare P. Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263 (Bom) has held that a person liable to pay tax on deemed dividend is the person who is the shareholder of the company advancing the loan.
6. Admittedly, the respondent-assessee was not a shareholder of M/s. Arco Electro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. at the relevant time. In the above view, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal. Moreover, as the issue stands concluded by the two decisions of this court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.