DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., GMS ROAD, DEHRADUN

The assessee has filed six appeals against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.08.2024 and 14.08.2024 for AYs 2017-18, 2020-21, 2022-23 and 2017-18

At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that for AY 2017-18 against order passed u/s 143 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the assessee and Revenue has filed cross appeals. He submitted that the case of the assessee is that since the order u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the ITAT, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance to order passed u/s 263 do not survive and accordingly, he prayed that the impugned assessment order may be quashed.

Ld. DR of the Revenue did not controvert the aforesaid submission made by the ld. AR of the assessee. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that ITAT vide order dated 15.09.2023 in for AY 2017-18 quashed the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. Since the order passed u/s 263 is quashed by the ITAT, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance to order passed u/s 263 do not survive and accordingly, we quash the assessment and Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No.169/Del/2024 is dismissed.

We observe that that for AY 2017-18 against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee has filed appeal which is in connection with the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Since we have quashed the assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in para 4 above, the impugned order u/s 154 passed in connection to that order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 does not survive, accordingly, we quash the assessment passed u/s 154 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being is allowed. ASSESSEE’S APPEAL [ITA No.177/DDN/2024 (AY 2018-19)] 8. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the only issue involved is computing and taxing the Distribution Dividend Tax (DDT) of Rs.5,55,37,796 on alleged dividend distributed of Rs.27,80,10,484/- as against the actual distributed dividend of Rs.22,66,66,225/- on which DDT of Rs.4,61,44,259/- was paid by the assessee. In this regard, he submitted that Rs.27,80,10,484/- (Rs.27,80,10,484/- + Rs.4,61,44,259/-) as dividend distributed in its return of income. However, fact remains that assessee has declared dividend of Rs.22,66,66,225/- on which due DDT of Rs.4,61,44,259/- was paid. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) has accepted this contention of the assessee but remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer whereas he ought to have deleted the impugned addition. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned addition may be deleted.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe from the record submitted before us that the assessee has actually declared dividend of Rs.22.67 crores and paid the due tax of Rs.4.61 crores. While reporting the above transaction in the ROI, the assessee has inadvertently declared the dividend paid as Rs.27.26 crores (including the tax due i.e. Rs.22.67 crores + Rs.4.61 crores). The assessee has demonstrated by filing the financial statements before CPC and Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The same was rejected by only relying on the amount declared by the assessee in the ROI. The ld. CIT (A) has appreciated the above facts on record and has remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. After considering the relevant documents on record, we are satisfied Rs.22.67 crores and also paid the due tax. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is uncalled for. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the above addition. Accordingly, ground raised

Ld. DR of the Revenue did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the issue regarding depreciation on the assets acquired from UPJVNL is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in earlier assessment years. We find that the ITAT in the order in for AY 2014-15 01.12.2021 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by observing as under :- “6. We have gone through the entire contents and the history of the assessee. In this case, the assets have been transferred from Uttar Pradesh Government (UPJVNL) to Uttaranchal Government (UJVNL). There is no claim of the depreciation twice by both the Governments. The demerger led to division of assets in a fixed ratio and the same was duly accounted for both the entities as per the written down value (WDV) as on that date. The depreciation on demerger cannot be a forgone benefit owing to demerger, which is the result of state reorganization. Hence, we decline to interfere with the reasoned order of the Ld. CIT (A).”

Respectfully following the precedents, we allow the aforesaid ground taken by the assessee.

With regard to Dividend Distribution tax, this issue is dealt by us in the for AY 2018-19 in paras 8 to 10 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by allowing the ground raised