M/S. STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6310/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 October 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the AO and CIT(A) were correct in disallowing the claim at their level based on the Goetze India Ltd. judgment, appellate authorities, including the Tribunal, can entertain such claims if the facts are on record. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the additional exemption.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed dividend income as exempt but later made an additional claim for further exemption on dividend income not properly computed at the time of filing the return. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed this additional claim, citing the Goetze India Ltd. judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether an additional claim for exemption of dividend income, not made in the original or revised return, can be entertained by the appellate authorities. Whether the Goetze India Ltd. judgment bars appellate authorities from considering such claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(34),Section 10(35)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra
Hearing: 24/10/2017

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 03.09.2014, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) XII, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2010-11. In the grounds of appeal assessee has raised following grounds:-

Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT

1.

That levy of tax on dividend from equity shares and mutual funds which are exempt u/s 10 (34) and 10(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the law.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in assessing correctly the tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law by not allowing exemption on an exempt item i.e. dividend received during the year but inadvertently included in its taxable income by the assessee company. 3. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law by rejecting the rightful and genuine claim of the assessee by not allowing rectifying the assessment and allowing exemption on the whole of the dividend income, which lapse was duly brought to the notice of the Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(2).”

2.

The brief facts qua the issue involved that assessee in the return of income has claimed dividend income of Rs. 88,77,160/- as exempt. However during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 14th February, 2013 made additional claim of further exemption of Rs. 47,82,584/- on the ground that it was also dividend income earned during the year which is exempt u/s 10(34) and 10(35) and the same could not be properly computed at the time of filing of revised return. A.O. disallowed the additional claim made by the assessee on the ground that same should have been made by way of revised return and applying the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) disallowed the assessee’s claim.

Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT

3.

Ld. CIT (A) too following the same judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the action of the A.O.

4.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Accordingly, we are proceeding to decide the matter on merits after hearing the Ld. DR.

5.

The sole dispute before us is that, whether additional claim made by the assessee for exemption of dividend income of Rs. 47,82,584/- can be entertained or not as assessee has not made this claim by way of revised return. From the perusal of the impugned order it is seen that there is no dispute that total exempt income earned by the assesse is Rs. 1,36,59,745/- in the form of dividend, out of which sum of Rs. 47,82,584/- was claimed by way of letter filed before the A.O. on 14th February, 2013. The AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) have refused to entertain the claim despite the fact that such an income is not taxable after following the ratio laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). However the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such claim can be allowed by the appellate authority including the Tribunal and it does not impinge upon the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the facts are on the record. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) should have examine the claim of assessee and allow the same in accordance with the law.

Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT Since there is no dispute that dividend income to the extent of Rs. 47,82,584/- was left to be claimed in the return of income, therefore, the same can be allowed by the appellate authorities including this Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to allow the claim of the assessee and grant exemption of dividend income u/s 10(34) / 10(35).

6.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th October, 2017.

More judgments on Section 10(34)

All 731 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(34) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →