9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The order is passed against the principle of natural justice and thus liable to the quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer in respect of dividend income received from IPF Breeders Pvt. Ltd. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 25,00,000/- under section 2(22) of the Act without considering the fact that the said amount was part of interim dividend declared the company on which dividend distribution tax was already paid. 6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provision of section 115-O of the Act as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it was held that the said receipt of refund of equity share capital was not liable to be taxed. The decision was accepted by the Revenue." 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, who is carrying on the business of labour contract and consultancy. For the assessment year 2003-2004, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 48,66,740, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Consequent to information received from DCIT, Trichur, the assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and reassessment was completed on 12.12.2007, determining total income of Rs. 1,02,36,398. One of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was dividend income of Rs. 25,00,000. The A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- "5.3 Since in the year under consideration neither section 10(33) were in the statute which provide exemption to the dividend income received as referred to in section 115-O. Earlier clause 33 was inserted by the Finance Act 1997, substituted by Finance Act 1999 amended by Finance 2001 later on omitted by Finance Act 2002, Sub-section 34, 35 & 36 are inserted with effect from 01.04.2004. In between period neither sub-section 33 nor 34 were existing. The AR's arguments are in two folds. One is that the dividend declared by the company will not fall under the definition of dividend within the meaning of section 2(22) since dividend includes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the dividend income of Rs. 25 lakh was received in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2003-2004 (Rs. 17,96,500 on 07.11.2002 and Rs. 7,03,500 on 09.11.2002). For the assessment year 2003-2004, the assessee was not entitled to exemption of dividend income in absence of section 10(33) of the Act (section 10(33) of the Act was omitted by the Finance Act, 2002). Moreover, the contention of the assessee that the impugned payment of Rs. 25 lakh is in the nature of capital in view of the fact that the company was under liquidation proceedings, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
