Holding

A deemed dividend, if any, is taxable in the hands of the beneficial owner of the shares, not merely the registered shareholder.

Summary

The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) beneficially owned shares in a private limited company, though the shares were registered in the name of its Karta. The company advanced loans to three business concerns owned by the HUF, and the Income‑Tax Officer treated those loans as "deemed dividend" under section 2(6A)(e) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1922, taxing the HUF. The Assam High Court held that only a person whose name appears in the company’s register is a "shareholder" for the purpose of the provision and that, even if deemed dividend, tax could be levied only on the registered shareholder. The Revenue appealed, challenging only the High Court’s view on the taxability of deemed dividend. The Supreme Court held that where a loan qualifies as deemed dividend, it must be taxed in the hands of the beneficial owner, not merely the registered shareholder, but it did not overrule the High Court’s finding that the loans were not deemed dividend. Consequently, the assessment was set aside and the HUF was not taxed on the loans.

Issues considered

Whether loans advanced by a private company to the business concerns of a HUF, whose shares are registered in the name of the Karta, fall within the definition of "deemed dividend" under section 2(6A)(e) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1922.
Whether a "deemed dividend" under the same provision is taxable in the hands of the beneficial owner of the shares or only in the hands of the registered shareholder.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1922s. 2(6A)(e)

Subjects

deemed dividendsection 2(6A)(e)beneficial ownerregistered shareholderincome taxHindu Undivided Familyloan to shareholdertaxability

Judgment

369

RAMESHW AR LAL SANWARMAL A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM
December 5, 1979
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 8
Jnd~an Income Tax Act 1922-Section 2(6A) (e)-Scope of-Shares in a
company registered i'n the name of Karta of HUF-Company advanced loans
to business co11ctrns of HUF-/oans--if "deemed dividend".

The assessee, a liindu Undivided Family, owned certain Shares in a private
limited company in which the public \Vere not substantially interested. Though C
the shares were beneficially owned by the Hindu Undivided Family, they stood
registered in the name of its Karta. From out of its accumulated profits the
company gave loans, in the assessment yea·r 1956-57, to three business concerns
which \Vere owned by the assessee. Section 2(6A) (e) of the Indian Income
Tax .Act, 1922 provided that where a ]private company in which public were
not substantially interested gave loans to its shareholders from out of its
accumulated profits such loans would be treated as "deemed dividend" in the D
hands of the shareholders.

The Income Tax Officer treated the loans as "deemed dividend" in the hands
of the assessee on the grol,Jnd that though the shares stood in the name of the
Karta, the assessee being the beneficial owner, the conditions of section 2(6A)-
(e) were satisfied. Thil view of the Income Tax Officer was upheld by the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner. E
The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contentions of the assessee that the
loans could not be taxe<l as "deemed div.idend" in its hands because it was not the
1 registered owner of the shares; and (2) assuming that they could be treated as
"deemed dividend" they could be taxed. ouly in the hands of the karta. The
Tribunal referred six questions to the H-igh Court.

Answering two out of the six questions, the High Court held that (1) the F
loans could not be treated as "deemed c1!ividend" in the assessee's hands because
the term shareholder used in the section meant only a person Vi hose name is
1

recorded in the company's register of shareholders and (2) even assuming that
the loans were "deemed dividend" they could be taxed onlY' in the hands of the
registered shareholder (the Karta). The assessment made by the Income Tax
Officer was accordingly set aside.
G
In appeal to this Court, instead CJf questioning the correctness of the answers
returned by the High Court the Revenue attacked only that part of the High
Court's order \Vhich held that "deemed dividend" could be taxed only in the
hands of the registered shareholder. Therefore the question before this Court
was whether "deemed dividend" could· be taxed in the hands of the beneficial
owner of shares or could be brought to tax only in the hands of the registered
.., \
sharehclder. This Court answered that where share• are acquired with the H
funds of one person but are registered in the name of another it is the benefi-
cial owner who should be taxed on the dividend on the shares and that this
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1980] 2 S.C.R.

A principle applies equally to "deemed dividend" under the section. Even so~
this Court discharged the answer given by the High Court in favour of the
assessee and substituted an a'n:swer in favour of the Revenue.

Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in C.l.T. v. Saratliy Mudali•r
(83 l.T.R. 170) where it was held that a loan advanced by a company to a
beneficial owner did not fall within the mischief of section 2(6A)(e) the
B assessee contended that loans in this case could not be taxed as "deemed divi-
dend" in ill hands.
The Revenue on the other hand contended that ( 1) since in the earlier case
of Rtune-swar!al Sanwannal (82 I.T.R. 628) this Court had u11swered the refe- ~~
rence in favour of the Revenue and that decision wa~ final the later decision in '-,
Sarathy Mudaliar's case would not be available to the assesoee; (2) although
C the present question was not specifically considered by this Court on the eorlier
occasion_ it must be held to have been impliedly decided against the a.ssessee and
(3) that the decision in Sarathy Mudaliars case was incorrect and should be
referred to a larger bench.

HELD : The arguments of the Revenue are fallacious. \Vhen the Revenue
came in appeal to this Court in the earlier case of Rarneswarlal Sanwarn1al it
D challenged only the second part of the High Court's decision ignoring the first
part. The result 'va<:> that the first part of the High Court's decision that loans
advanced to the bu~iness concerns of a beneficial owner of shares could not be
regarded as "deemed dividend" in his hands and that the loans in the present
case did not fall 1vithin the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) ren1ained intact and
unaffected by the decision· of this Court. This Court could not have answered
the first question against the assessee \Vithout over-ruling the first part of the '
E High Court's decision. However) through inadvertan.:e, this Court s~t aside
the High Court's answer without considering whether thi~ part of the, decision
was right or 1vrong. When no contention was raised on behalf- of the Revt:nue
that even if the assessee Was not a registered shareholder loans advanced to its
busines<; concerns \VOuld be· "deemed dividend" in its bands and there was no
occasion for this Court to consider the question, from the mere fact that an
answer was given in favour of the Revenue, it cannot be said that this conten-
F tion was impliedly decided in its favour. [376 C-H]

2. The proper V..'<IY of looking at the decision of this Court in Ratneswarlal
Sanwaonal would be to regard the answer given in favour of the Revenue to be
confined only to the aspect considered and decided by this Court, namely, that
"deemed dividend'' did not stand on any different footing from actual dividend
and just as actual dividend is liable to be taxed in the hands of the beneficial
G owner of the shares so too "deemed dividend'' must be held liable to be taxed
in the hands of the beneficial owner. This Court did not consider whether a\
loan to a beneficial owner could be regarded as "deemed dividend". Therefore,
(
this aspect of the question still remained to be answered and it was open to the
assessee to contend that the loans advanced to its business concerns -could not
be regarded as "deemed dividend" within the meaning of the section 5ince the
assessee was not a- registered shareholder. [377 A-D]
H I ,_.
3 ( 1) The decision of this Court in Sarat~y Mudaliar's case laid down the
law ccrrectly and there is no need to refer the case to a larger bench. The
R. L. SANWARMAL '" C.I.T., ASSAM (Bhagwoti, J.) 371

question whether a loan advanced to a beneficial owner of shares ·would be A
liable to be regarded as "deemed dividend" was neither raised nor considered
by this Court in Rameswarlal Sa11lvannal's case but came. up for consideration
for the first time in Sarathy A1udaliar's case only. There is thus no conflict
bet.ween the two decisions, [377 E-l-1]

(b) It is only where a loan is advanced by a company tC\ a registered share-
holder and the other conditions set out in the section are satisfied that the B
amoutlt of the loan V-iOUld be liable to be regarded as "deemed dividend". The
amount of loan v.'Ould not fall within the mischief of the section if it i~ .granted
to a beneficial owner of the shares. [378 E-F]
In the instant case the loans were advanced not to the registered ~bareholder
but to the business concerns of the beneficial owner. Hence they could not be
regarded as loans advanced to a shareholder of the company \Vithin the mean- C
ing of the section. [378 HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 133 of i979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
13-6-1972 of the Assam High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
UM. D
H. M. Verma and N. R. Choudhary for the Appellant.
S. C. Manchanda, S. P. Nayar and Mis.• A. Subhashini for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was deliwred by
E
BHAGWATI, J.-This appea1 by special leave raises a question of
law relating to the interpretation of section 2(6A) (e) of the Indian
Income-Tax Act, 1922. The question is in fact concluded by a deci-
sion of this Caurt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. C. P. Sarathy
Mudaliar( 1) but, it has been. argued on behalf of the Revenue that this
decision is in conflict with an earlier decision given by this Court in F
Commissio"1er of Income-tux v. Rameshwadal Sanwarmal(') and
hence tre question should be :referred to a larger Bench. We shall
presently consider these two decisions, but we may point out straight·
away that, in our opinion, there is no conflict between these two deci·
sions and the question is completely covef'od by the decision in Com-
G
missioner of Income-tax v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra). The
facts giving rise to the appeal are not in dispute and we may briefly
T
state th.e same in order to appreciate how the question arises for deter-
mination.

The assessee is the Hindu lndivided Family of M/s. Rameshwar-
\ ' H
lal Sanwarmal consisting of S. M. Saharia as manager and karta and

(1) 83 l.T.R. 170. (2) 82 I.T.R. 628.
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R.

A his wife and a minor son. The asseo;sment year with which we are con-
rerned in the appeal is 1956-57, the relevant accounting year being
the year ending Ramanavami Samba! 2012, that is, 18th April, 1956.
During this ~ssessment year, the assessee was the beneficial owner of
certain shares in a private limited company called Shyam Sunder Tea
Co. (P) Limited. These shares though beneficially owned by the
B assessee stood in the name of S. M. Saharia in the register of share-
holders of the Company. The asscssee also owned 3 business con-
cerns, namely, Nilmony Shop, Saharia & Co. and Saharia Industrial
Corporation. The Company advanced loans to th•.:se 3 business con-
cerns during the relevant assessment year and since it was a company
in which public we.re not substantially interested, a question arose .in
c the assessment of thz asscssee to income-tax, whether the loans ad-
vanced to these 3 business concerns could be regarded as "deemed
dividend" of the asses·,ee under section 2(6A) (e) of the Act? The
Income-tax Officer took the view that the loans advanced to the 3
business concerns were attributable to the accumulated profits of the
n company to the extent of Rs. 4,48,045 and since the asses,ee which
owned the 3 business concerns was the beneficial owner of the slrnres
standing in the name of S. M. Saharia, the conditions of section 2(6A)
( e) were satisfied and the loans were liable to be regarded as "deemed
dividend" taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 2( 6A)
( e). The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of assess-
E ment but the Appellate Assistant Commissionw agreed with the view
taken by the Income-tax Officer and held that since S. M. Saharia held
shares in the company as representing the assessee and the loans were
advanced to the three business concerns belonging to the assessec, out
of the accmµula!ed profits of the company, the Income-tax Offirer was
justified in treating the loans as "deemed dividend" under section
2 ( 6A) ( e); and taxing them in the hands of the assessee. The matter
was can:ied in further appeal to the Tribunal and several arguments '
were advanced on behalf of the assessee resisting the applicability of
section 2( 6A) ( e), but of them, there are two which are material for
our purpose and they are : first, that since the assessee was not a regis-
tered holder of shares in the company, the loans advanced to the three
business concerns of the assessee could not be regarded as loans
advanced to a share-holder so as to attract the applicability of section
2 ( 6A) (e) ; and secondly, even if the loans could be treated as
"deemed dividend" under section 2 ( 6A) ( e), they could be taxed
only in the hands of S. M. Saharia, the registered shareholder and not
H in the hands of the . assessee. Both these arguments were negatived
by the Tribunal and so a:so were the other subordinate arguments
and the appeal was rejec'.ed and the assessment confirmed. This led
R. L. SANWARMAL v. C.J.T., ASSAM (Bhagwati, J.) 373

to a reference application by tr.e asscssee and on the application, five A
qu-~stions of law were referred by the Tribunal to the High Court.
There were. in fact, six questions but for the purpose of the present
appeal, it is not necessary to refer to the first question, since it related
to the assessment year 1955-56 and it raised a point · of limitation
which was ultimately decided in favour of the assessee and there is no
dispute about it. The other five questions related to the taxability of B
the loans advanced to the three business cono~rns of the assessee as
"deemed dividend" under section 2(GA)(e) and each of tkse ques-
tions brought in issue different aspect of taxabi!ity. It is the first of
these questions which is material and we may re-produce it as follows:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the c
case, and on a true interp relation of the terms of section
2(6A) (e) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 2,21,702 (gross)
and Rs. 3,43,505 (net) vvere taxable as dividehds in the
hands of the applicant H.U.F. for the asse•sment years
1955·56 and 1956-57 respectively, when th~ shares were
registered ii) the name of Sri S. M. Saharia, the karta of the
family?"
This q~stion referred to beth the assessment years 1955-56 and
1956-57, but we are not concerned in this appeal with the controversy
relating to the assessmeht year 1955-56 and hence we shall confine E
onrselves only to the assessment year 1956-57.
Now two distinct aspects were comprised in this question and both
were argued before the High Court. One was whether the loans
advanced to the three business concerns of .the. assessee. could be
regarded as "deemed dividend"' within the meaning of s.ec(ion 2( 6A) F
(e) , ahd the other was whet~cr these .loans, eyen if ; regarded . as
"deemed divide'nd" could be taxed in the .hands of ;the ~essi:e ... The .
High :Court decided both these aspects of the question in.favour of !hi'
a~see and he)d that the word "share-holder" in section 2(6A) .(e)
m()jlllt a registered share-holder or in. other words,. a. shax<;)lo\der
whos11:-name is reco•ded in the}legister of .the comp&ny as. the.holder G; l
of ;the sh;lres ·a11d since the advance )n the prese11t c.a.~e. WjlJUl].ade )o
tll!~ 1&ss!'Ss.ee which. wai; hot a registered share-holdl\\,,tlt ~quid .11 0t .be
re!m'qe\I; a~ .'.'.QeemN dividen<:I'' within the .meaning~oC~e~ti!i1Il ~(6A)
(e). a.nd ,th,at ev~n if j,t be assurr~i,l thatr the advanq~,w'l!l)i~pl~,,\o,be
rew<:\ed ,a; :•aeem~q. dividewl" under; section Z(6A) ,(f(), 1 it .l'Qulcj be
ta~ ~s, divid,nd. inoqme only .o(:the regis\ef"\( sJw.re"hpJ4.er .a11d1,not ". Hu
of 11he assessee. This view t~keo by tl\e. High .~our~ ~~rrA il \Ilk ..
necessary to decide the other four questions and ;lJJ~p.:I.:Jigl.1,.~~'µrt ,,
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980J 2 sc.R.

A accordingly declired to consider them. The result of this decision
was that the assessment made by the Revenue Authorities was set
aside in so far as it included the loans advanced by the company to
the three business conocr'ns of the assessee as deemed dividend and
taxed it in the hands of the assessee.

B The Revenue, bejng aggrieved by the decision of the High Court,
preferred an appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court. Now
it seems that through some inadvertence which is difficult to understand,
the Revenue attacked only that part of the order of the High Court which
held that the "deemed dividend" could be assessed to tax only in the
C hands of S. M. Saharia, the registered share-holder and not in the hands
of the assessee which was merely the beneficial owner cf the shares.
Neither in the statement of case filed on its behalf nor in the course
of the arguments the Revenue assailed the correctness of the view takeri
by the High Court that since the assessee was not a registered shar~
holder, loans advanced to the assessee could not be regarded as "deemed
D dividend" under section 2(6A)(e). The result was that the only
question that came to be considered by this Court was wi1ether the
"deemed dividend" under section 2 ( 6A) ( e) could be taxed in the
hands of the beneficial owner of the shares or it could be brought to
tax only in the assessment of the registered share-holder and the vfew
taken was that where the shares acquired with the funds of one person
E are held in the name of another, it is the fom1er who is assessable to
tax on the dividend on those shares and this principle would apply
equally on the 'deemed dividend' under section 2(6A) (e). This Court
did not consider whether the loans granted to the three business concerns
of the assessee could at all be regarded as 'deemed dividend' withiri
F the meaning of section 2(6A) (e) when the assessee was not a regi>tered
share-holder and the decision of the High Court to the effect that the
assessee not bei•~ a registered share-holder, the loan advanced to it
could not be regarded as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(6A) (e)
remained undistw·bed. Now obviously, so long as the decision of the
High Court on this point was not over-ruled, the question whether the
JG · amount of the loans was taxable as "deemed dividend" in the hands
of the assessee could not be answered.in favour of the Revenue. But
sometimes even Homer nods and through some unfortunate inadver-
tence for which the counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee in that
case must accept full responsibility. this Court discharged the answer
given by the High Court in favour of the assessee and in iis place sub-
H stituted an answe,r in favour of the Revenue. This decision of the
Court is reported in Co111111issio11er of Income-tax v. Rameshwar Lal
Sanwarmal (supra).
I
R L. SM,\nl<MAL v. C.I.T., ASSAM (Bhagwati, J.) 375

Since the first question relating to the assessmen~ year 1956-57 was A
answered by this Court in favour of the Revenue, the Reference went
.~ back ti" the High Court for consideration of the remaining questions
that had not been answered by the High Court. It appears that at the
hearin)! of the I<eferencc the first two' out of the remaining four ques-
tions were not pressed on behalf of the assessees and only, the last two
B
questions were argued before the High Court. Both these questions
were ccnsiderc·,! by the High Court and they were answered in favour
of the Revenue and against the asscssee. Th!l assessee thereupon µre-
ferred the present appeal '1fter obtaining special leave. from this Court.

There was only one contention advanced on behalf of the assessee
in support of the appeal, namely, that the amounts of the loans advanced c
to the three business concerns of the assessee could n~t be regarded
as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of section 2(6A) (e) since
lhe '1sse5'ee was not a registered share-holder of the company. This
contention was sought to be supported by the decision of this Court
in Commissioner of lncome-111x v. C. P. Sarathy !Httdaliar (supra).
D
Now there can be no doubt that the decision, of this Court in C.l.T. v.
C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) lays down that it i& only where a loan
is advanced by a company to a registered share-holder out of its accu-
mulated profits that it would be liable to· be regarded as 'deemed
dividend' under sec. 2(6A)(e) and a loan to a beneficial owner of the
shares does not come within the mischief of that section and if this E
decision represents the conect law on the subject, the amounts of loans
advonced to the three business concerns of the assessee would not
possibly be brought withifl the net of taxation as 'deemed dividend'.
But the argument urged on behalf of the Revenue was that it w.as
not open to the assessee to raise this contention based on the decision
in Commissioner of lncm!le·tax v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra), F
since it was covered by the first question which had already been
answered in favour of the Revenue by this Court. Tho Revneue con-
ceded that this contention was not specifically raised before the Court
when the first question came to be considered but it must be held to
have been impliedly decided against the assessee, since the first question
G
could Rot be answere<l in favour of th~ Revenue on any other hypo-
• thesis. This argument of the Revenue docs appear to be very plausible
at first blush, but if it is scrutinised closely it will be apparent that it
is fallacious and cannot be accepted. The most important circum,
stance which it ignores is that when the Reference was first heard by
the High Court, the first question was decided in favour of the assessee H
on two counts, one was that since the assessee was not a registered
share-holder of the company, the loons advanced to the three business
~ \
:l 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

concerns of the assessee could not be regarded as 'deemed dividend'
within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) and the other was that even if
they could be treated as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(6A) (e),
they could be taxed only in the hands of S. M. Saharya, the reghtcrcd
share-holder and not in the hands of the assessee who was merely
B
a beneficial owner of the shares. When the Revenue preferred an
appeal against the judgment of the High Court, the Revenue should
have assailed the decision of the High Court in both its limbs, but
'
through some inadvertence which is difficult to understand, the Revenue
challenged only the second limb of the decision ignoring completely the
first. The result was that the decision of the High Court that the
c amounts of loans advanced to the three business concerns of the
assessee did not fall within the definition of 'deemed dividend' in
section 2(6A) (e) remained intact and unaffected by the decision of
this Court in the appeal. Now, it is true that this Court could not
have answered the1 first question against the assessee without over-ruling
this part of the decision of the High Court, but through some unfor-
p tunate error, this Court set aside the answer given by the High Court
in favour of the asscssee without considering whether this part of the
decision of the High Court was right or wrong. When no contention
was raised on behalf of the Revenue before this Court that the decision
of the High Court on this point was wrong and that even though the
assessee was not a registered shareholder, the amounts of loans
E advanced to the three business concerns of the assessee were still liable
to be regarded as "deemed dividend" under section 2(6A)(e) and no
such contention formed the subject-matter of discussion before this
Court and this Court had, therefore, no occasion to consider this
question, it is difficult to see how it can be said merely from the
Fi answer given by. this Court in favour of the Revenue that this contention
was impliedly decicled ,ln favoµi:,of the Revenue. It would be straining
logic to an ~1?f ii)P limit Jr>, Sj!~ that }))ou1!4, this contention was not
raj~ed, not,. ar~p<J,. ~o!, disc~ss"'1 and n?t decided,. yet it l)l~st. be held
to have been!ll!R!tedl~.d~.S1P.~Jl,becaiµ;e, 1 .thr?ugh 'fn eJ,"or cornnutted
by this Co11rt, an .answer was given in)avour ofthe Rev~/l~ in igno- .·
G•' ranee of ~11.e, t~1.'e ~?si;!?r.·,,~i .~011!~ a)&o nc;>t 1'~ right to,h9ld th~t
mer5ly beca'!s~ iljis, S<;i;n. pr!f>,%0!/~ly al!Swerep the . first, question,
•
a~amst the a~~.~s~~. 1v\\??.uf, cRB~,1~~rHlll i ~~efher, the \'iew ,taken: by .the
Hr.gh C".•urt "'\:th~~ PD1!1t.was, :mcor.re\;~· the assessee n:ust, be pre~h1ded 1
fron,:t raising )he conte?!J.91.'".tlfat,,,the .,a,s~es~ee not )i1e1ng ,a registereii
share··hold~~~ ,tl,i,~ ~1.'~S1!1'%9L\~~?~ ~pyaqsl'f!}? $ei,th~ee b11~iness con- .
HI c~~~s of,,.t?e ~~.~sse~,, d.~d, .1J9!. r.;», 'l'~t,ji\µ :tlW 4~~ajtiqn9,~, '.'.cjeeme<l ..
chv1den.d,,. m,iilrr ,;,\'d)o1\ 2.(~A),,( e~r, ,,,W,\W ~))qUW,, f~e r17'~essF~,, ~hi,ch :,
had the del:iSWn of lhe•1'11g& Court on this pomt m its favour and I ~
' R. L. SANWARMAL v. C.LT., ASSAM (Bhagwati, J.) 377

which decision was not assailed by the Revenue in the appeal and which 4
remained undisturbed by this Court, be prejudiced on account of an
obvious erro.r committed by the court. The proper way of looking at
the decision of this Court would be to regard the answer given in
favour of the Revenue to1 be confined only to the aspect considered and
decided by this Court. The only aspect considered by this Court was B,
whether the "deemed dividend" under section: 2 ( 6A) ( e) could be taxed
in the hands of the beneficial owner of the shares or it could be assessed
to tax ooly in the hands of the registered shareholder, and this Court
held that ,"deemed dividend" did not stand on any different footing
from actual dividend and just as .actual dividend was liable to be taice<:l
in the• bands of the beneficial owner of the shares, so also "deemed· c'
dividend" must be held liable to be taxed ii~ the assessment o:f the
benefi9i.al ·. owner. This Court did .µot decide the question whether. 11
loaq.,.aP,~illlC.ed to a .beneficial owner of the,S')lares ca)l be reg'll"derl as
"deein¢ cjiyidend" within the meaning of:slletion 2(6A)(e) ·and the
answ~r-&iv~ by this,Court in,favour of lhe~R_evenue cannot be said
to eJf~nfl .to this aspect of the question. We would, therefore, hold D
that•f!!f f\rst question still~emains to be ans:wered-sc;> far ru, this aspec•
of lh,e:!il_\lystjon is concerned and it is. opeu t 0 the assessee· to contend
that. QJr <1mounts of}OOJtS a\lvanced to the, three business concerns. of!
the. ,q.ssei;see could .. l)ot be regarded a~ "deemed dividend" under seetionv
Z<-04l~(e), ~ince the assessee was not a registered shareholder. .J E'
tds ·also obvious from what ~·e have s~il above that i11~r~ is ~'a·:
cooftitt ·betW6en the deeislons of this Court· in C.l.T. v. Rmnesw~rl~l·
._, - - ' ' < ' ' , ' ' ' ' ,?. ' •

Sanwlirmal' and C.l.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliaf (supra). The question
wheth~, 'Ott a proper conitruction of section 2(6A) (e), a loan advance f
to a .beneficial ownet of the shares would be· liable to be regarded ~?
"dee!Ited dividend" was not raised or argued Jiefore this Court in c.t:t. ;<
v. Rameswarlal Sanwarmal and this Court was not called upon to decide
it and hence there is no discussion abont it m the judgment of this
Court nor is there any decision on it. It is only in the subsequeri!
decision. in C.l.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) that this question
came up fo.r the first time before this Court for consideration and this G"
• Court held that when sec. 2(6A) (e) speaks oil a "shareholder" it refers
to ih~ registered shareholder and not to the beneficial owner and hence
I a Joan' granted tO a beneficial OWner Of the Shares WhO is not a fegiSfered

1
shareholder cannot be regarded as a loan advanced to a "sha!eholder"
of ltte compan}'. so as to be within the mischief of section 2 ( 6A) ( e) .
There is thus no coµJlict at all between the decisions in C.l.T. v. c. p, R
Sarathy, ,Mudaliar (supra) and C.I.T. v. Rameswarlal Sanwannal. In
fa9t, Mr. Justice He~e was a. common Member of the Bench in both·
3-:ii 'sci,so · ·· · ·
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A the cases and the subsequent decision in C.l.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Muaaliar
was given within Jess than a month after the decision in C.l. T. v.
Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal. It is impossible to believe that Mr. Justice
·- '
Hegde was oblivious of the decision in C.l.T. v. Rameswarlal Sanwarmiil
when he delivered the judgment in C.I.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar.

B The Revenue lastly contended that the decision in C.l.T. v. C. P.
Sarathy Mudaliar is incorrect and we must refer the present case to a
larger Bench. Now it is obvious that before wei can be persuaded to
accede to this request, we must be satisfied that the decision in Com-
missioner of Income Tax v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar is wrong. But
having given our most anxious consideration, we find onrselves llllllble
c to disa~ee with the view taken in that decision. What section 2(6A) (e)
is designed to strike at is advance or Joan to a "shareholder" and the
word "shareholder" can mean only aj registered shareholder. It is diffi-
cult to see how a beneficial owner of shares whose name does not apPeiir
in the register of shareholders of the company can be said to be a
"shareholder". He may be beneficially entitled to the shares but; he is
D certainly not a "shareholder". It is only the person whose name i~
entered in the register of shareholders of the company as the holder
of the shares who can be said to be a shareholder qua the company.
and not the person beneficially entitled to the shares. It is the former
who is a "shareholder" within the matrix and scheme of the company
law and not the latter. We are, therefore, of the view that it is only
E
where a loan is advanced by the company to a registered shareholder
and the other conditions set ont in section 2(6A) {e) are sati&fied that
the amount of the loan would be liable to be regarded as 'd~emed
dividend' within the meanjng of section 2 ( 6A) ( e). The amount ol
the loan would not fall within thei mischief of this section if it is gra.ated
F to a beneficial owner of the shares who is not the registered shareholder.
The decision in C.l.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar does, in our opinion,
lay down the correct interpretation of section 2(6A)(e).
Now in the present case it was common ground that the
loons were advanced to the three business concerns of the assessee
G which was a Hindu Undivided Family and this Hindu Undvided
Family was not the registered holder of any shares in the com- •
pany but it was the beneficial owner of certain shares which
stood in the name of the Manager and Karta, Shri) S. M. Saharya. The
loans were thus advanced to thei beneficial ownet of the shares and not
to the registered shareholder and hence they conld not be regarded as
e loans advanced to a "shareholder" of the company within the meaning
of section 2 ( 6A) ( e). Section 2 ( 6A) ( e) was accordingly not attracted f •
and the amounts of the loans could not be taxed as deemed dividends
R. L. SANWARMAL V. C.I.T., ASSAM (Bhagwati,- ].) 379

_, in the hands of the assessee. We accqrdingly answer the first question A
\ in favour of the assessee so far as this aspect is concerned. In view
-0f this answer to the first question, it is not necessary to consider the
-other two questions decided by the High Court on remand. The learned
.counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, in fact, did not press them.
There will he 10 order as to costs of the appeal. B

1-.3.R.

•

'