The first two of these contentions were rejected by the Tribunal. The first contention, in fact, was expressly given up at the time of the hearing of the appeals. As regards the second, the Tribunal found as a fact that the payment of the advance or loan was to the Hindu undivided family and there was no basis for the claim that the advance or loan was really to another person viz. THE VEGETOLS, Ltd., a limited company to whom the amount was ultimately said to have been .lent by the Hindu undivided family. As regards the third contention, relying on the interpretation given to the expression 'shareholder' b.v the Bombay High Court in the case of S. C. Cambatta. (1946) 14 I.T.R. 748, the Tribunal held that since the Hindu undivided family was not itself and also could not be the registered shareholder of the company, but it was the individual members who as such. were the registered shareholders, the advance or loan to the Hindu undivided family, which was not a registered shareholder, could not be treated as the dividend income of the Hindu undivided family.· Although in the Bombay case the provisions of Sectior. · 23A, wherein also there is a provision for treating the deemed dividend as the income of the shareholder, were being considered and in the instant case the provisions of secti'on 2(6A )(e) were to be considered, the Tribunal held that the ratio of the Bombay case equally applied. as in both the sections. it was the artificial income that was sought to be taxed and the provisions of the law had, therefore, to be strictly construed. The reasoning of the Tribunal will be found in paragraph 3 of its common order.dated fB-1-1960. A copy on the Tribunal's order is Annexure 'A' hereto and forms part of the case.
