Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 30th October 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2016–17.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to part disallowance of refund claimed by the assessee on account of not allowing credit for dividend distribution tax and charging interest thereon.
2 Astec Lifesciences Ltd.
Brief facts are, the assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income claiming refund of ` 2,50,22,352. While processing the aforesaid return of income filed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the DCIT (CPC) issued intimation under section 143(1) of the Act by granting refund of ` 1,88,05,470, including interest under section 244A of the Act. The reduction in refund granted to the assessee was on account of alleged non–payment of dividend distribution tax (DDT) under section 115O of the Act, along with surcharge and cess aggregating to ` 49,50,739, as well as interest thereon charged under section 115P of the Act amounting to ` 12,37,685. Thus, the authority concerned reduced an amount of ` 61,88,424, from the refund claimed by the assessee. Against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.
After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim on the basis of materials on record and modify his order.
Reiterating the stand taken before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the 3 Astec Lifesciences Ltd.
Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to raise demand in respect of DDT while issuing intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. He submitted, while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer can make adjustment only to the returned income. He submitted, the DDT not being part of the returned income, no adjustment with regard to the same can be made under section 143(1) of the Act. As regards the merits of the issue, the leaned Counsel submitted that the assessee had paid the DDT along with the interest on time. However, inadvertently, in the challan through which the payment was made, the assessee had wrongly mentioned the assessment year as 2015–16 instead of 2016–17. He submitted, since the DDT has been paid in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee should be granted credit for such payment. Further, drawing our attention to Form no.26AS, issued for the assessment year 2016–17, copy of which is placed at Page–36 of the paper book, the learned Counsel submitted, the payment of DDT has been reflected therein. Thus, he submitted, the assessee should be given credit of DDT in the impugned assessment year.
The learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, since learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed to the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim on the basis
4 Astec Lifesciences Ltd. of material on record and modify his order, there cannot be any grievance by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we will deal with the merits of the issue. There is no dispute to the basic fact that the assessee had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year claiming refund of ` 2,50,22,352. Whereas, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has granted refund of ` 1,88,05,470, after adjusting the demand raised on account of DDT and interest charged thereon for delayed payment. It is further evident, though the dividend of ` 2,43,18,818, was to be paid for the profit earned for financial year 2014–15, corresponding to the assessment year 2015–16, however, the payment of dividend was approved by the shareholders in the AGM held on 22nd September 2015. Ultimately, the assessee distributed the dividend in financial year 2015–16 and DDT of ` 51,28,574, including interest of ` 1,49,376, was paid through challan no.01398, on 29th December 2015. However, while making payment through challan, the assessee inadvertently mentioned the assessment year as 2015–16 instead of 2016–17. As a result of the aforesaid mistake of mentioning the assessment year as 2015–16, credit towards payment of DDT was not given while processing the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year. On a perusal of Form no.26AS
5 Astec Lifesciences Ltd. issued for the assessment year 2016–17, it is noticed that the DDT paid of ` 51,28,574, has been reflected therein. Since the payment of DDT has been reflected in Form no.26AS issued for the assessment year 2016–17, there is no difficulty for the Assessing Officer in allowing credit of DDT to the assessee in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the assessee by taking note of Form no.26AS, issued for the assessment year 2016–17 and grant credit for DDT paid by the assessee and consequently allow assessee’s claim of refund. However, the aforesaid direction of ours is subject to verification that no credit for the aforesaid amount has been given to the assessee in assessment year 2015–16. With the aforesaid observations, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2020