JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "B" Bench, Ahmedabad passed in 2191/AHD/2011 for AY 2007-08, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law. "Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts contained in assessment order & in holding that the assessee company is not a share holder in Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and no addition could be made u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, as deemed dividend ? 2. The facts leading to the present Tax Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the assessee company is engaged in the business of Ship Breaking filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring total income at Rs. 47,11,510/-. The Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by making addition of Rs. 14,02,522/- on account of excess interest claimed to be paid to a party covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and addition of Rs. 85,21,606/- on account of deemed dividend income and accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 4,46,35,638/-. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who sustained the addition made under Section 40A(2)(b) and deleted the addition made on account of deemed dividend. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend, the Revenue preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed said appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with following proposed question of law. "Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts contained in assessment order & in holding that the assessee company is not a share holder in Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and no addition could be made u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, as deemed dividend? 3. "Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts contained in assessment order & in holding that the assessee company is not a share holder in Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and no addition could be made u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, as deemed dividend? 3. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue has vehemently submitted that as one Shri K.K. Bansal who was one of the Director of the company having substantial holding in the company and the assessee has paid interest to the said Shri K.K. Bansal of Rs. 17,55,132/-, the learned Assessing Officer rightly made the addition on account of deemed dividend. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer made on account of deemed dividend. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue has heavily relied upon Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue. From the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) and learned Tribunal, it emerges that the assessee company was not the share holder in the company to whom the loan was given. Merely because, one Shri KK Bansal a common substantial share holder in the assessee company as well as Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. to whom the loan was advanced, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of the interest treating as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 253 of 2015. After considering the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Impact Containers Private Limited & ors rendered in ITA No. 114 of 2012 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd., 340 ITR 14 (Del) and on interpreting Section 2(22)(e), in para 4 has observed and held as under: 4. Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has as such tried to justify the decision of the Delhi Court in the case of Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and has vehemently submitted that the Delhi High Court has not considered the third category i.e. shareholder in the assessee-Company holding not less than 10% of the voting power in the Company from whom the loan or advance is taken. However, on considering Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, we are not at all impressed with the aforesaid. If the contention on behalf of the revenue is accepted, in that case, it will be creating the third category/class, which is not permissible. What is provided under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act seems to be that the assessee-Company must be a shareholder in the Company from whom the loan or advance has been taken and should be holding not less than 10% of the voting power. It does not provide that any shareholder in the assessee-Company who had taken any loan or advance from another Company in which such shareholder is also a shareholder having substantial interest, Section 2(22)(e) of the act may be applicable. 5.1. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the facts narrated herein above, more particularly, considering the fact that the assessee was not share holder of Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. to whom loan was given, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on deemed dividend. 6. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arise in the present Tax Appeal and therefore, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.