9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of tax on dividends. 2. Authenticity of dividend warrants. 3. Proof of receipt of dividends. 4. Compliance with statutory provisions for tax refund. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Refund of Tax on Dividends: The primary question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of tax in respect of two dividends. The assessee, a partner in "Umamaheswara Motor Service," claimed refunds based on dividend warrants issued by the "Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd." The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal all rejected the claim, stating that the company did not have sufficient funds to declare and pay dividends after accounting for the income-tax of Rs. 62,000 levied on it. 2. Authenticity of Dividend Warrants: The Income-tax Officer noted that the dividend warrants filed by the assessee were not genuine, as the company's accounts did not show sufficient funds to declare such dividends. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner supported this view, stating, "Obviously, there was collusion between the company and the shareholders, and the issue of the dividend warrants was bogus." The Tribunal also found that the company could not have declared dividends due to insufficient profits, as evidenced by the discrepancy between the declared income and the issued dividend warrants. 3. Proof of Receipt of Dividends: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to prove actual receipt of the dividends. The Tribunal noted, "The assessee was not able to prove that the dividend had actually been received by him." The company's books were not available, purportedly destroyed, making it difficult to verify the claim. The Tribunal observed, "In making the return, the assessee did not show the dividend he received from the company," which further weakened the claim. 4. Compliance with Statutory Provisions for Tax Refund: Under section 49B of the Income-tax Act, the right to a tax refund on dividends is conditional upon the inclusion of the dividend in the shareholder's total income. The judgment clarified, "If the dividend is not included in the return of his total income by the shareholder, he would not be deemed to have paid the tax in respect of such income and would not be entitled to claim a refund under section 48." The assessee's failure to include the dividend in his total income was a critical factor in denying the refund. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the refund of tax in respect of the dividend. The judgment emphasized the necessity of proving actual receipt of dividends and compliance with statutory provisions for claiming tax refunds. The court stated, "The answer to the question referred is that the assessee is not entitled to the refund of tax in respect of the dividend." The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Income-tax, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250. Reference Answered Accordingly.
|
