CATVITION LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-examine the issue and grant credit for the taxes paid, provided the AO is satisfied about the appropriate recovery of tax and takes safeguards against misuse.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid dividend distribution tax for AY 2018-19 but mistakenly mentioned AY 2017-18 in the challan. The AO and CIT(A) denied credit for this payment due to the clerical error in the challan.
What were the issues?
Whether credit for dividend distribution tax paid should be allowed when there is a clerical error in mentioning the assessment year in the challan.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27.07.2022 arising from the assessment order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2018-19.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:
“1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law by raising a demand of Rs.15,87,620/- towards dividend distribution tax under section 115O for which the requisite payment was made on time and proof of payment was submited. 2. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, ld . CIT(Appeal) through NFAC has erred in not allowing the payment of Dividend Distribution Tax u/s. 115O on the pretest of clearical error mentioned in the challan.”
When the matter was called for hearing, the assessee submitted that the demand has been raised by the Assessing Officer towards dividend distribution tax amounting to Rs.15,87,620/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 in question. In this context, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has not given the credit towards dividend distribution tax paid to the extent of Rs.11,10,225/-. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the dividend distribution tax payable under Section 115O on dividend declared during the Financial Year 2017-18 was paid on 13.06.2017. However while making payment of such amount, the assessment year was wrongly mentioned in the challan is Assessment Year 2017-18 instead of correct Assessment Year 2018- 19. The assessee submitted that all these facts were placed before the CIT(A) but however the CIT(A) strictly went by the details put in the challan reflecting Assessment Year 2017-18 and therefore, declined to give any credit for payment claimed against the challan in respect of Assessment Year 2018- 19 in question. In the matter, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the taxes to the extent of Rs.11,10,225/- has been duly paid to the coffers of the Government albeit mentioning incorrect assessment year in the challan and therefore, credit should be given for such payments in relation to Assessment Year 2018-19. The mistake committed by the Assessee towards incorrect mentioning of assessment year should be corrected by the Appellate Authorities.
On being inquired by the Bench, the ld. counsel submitted that the credit for such challan has not been taken in any other assessment year and the assessee is willing to file the affidavit and the indemnity bond in this regard and also such other declaration as may be called upon by the Revenue to assign credit in correct AY 2018-19.
5. The copy of e-receipt for e-tax payment is reproduced hereunder:
In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to Assessee and for re-examination of the issue by the Assessing Officer . The Assessing Officer shall grant credit for taxes paid, in accordance with provisions of law, where the authority concerned is duly satisfied about appropriate recovery of tax and after taking due safeguards on any possible misuse of the e-challan purportedly bearing incorrect assessment year. It shall be open to the Assessee to place relevant facts and poistion of law before the Assessing Officer to enable him to perform his quasi judicial function in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/05/2023.
More judgments on Section 115O
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Esab India Limited, ChennaiITA 2645/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Esav India Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Corproate Circle-1(1), ChennaiITA 2353/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2904/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
- Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2903/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan vs Mcleod Russel India Ltd, KolkataITA 1169/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026