9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to relief under section 236 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Maintainability of appeal against the Income Tax Officer's order under section 236. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Relief under Section 236 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The case involves three banking companies in Trichirapalli that amalgamated in 1965, resulting in the formation of the Trichy United Bank. The amalgamation transferred all assets and liabilities of the Woraiyur Commercial Bank Ltd. and the Palakkarai Bank Ltd. to the Tennur Bank Ltd., which was subsequently renamed Trichy United Bank. The profits of the three banks prior to the amalgamation were carried to reserves and not distributed as dividends. Post-amalgamation, Trichy United Bank distributed dividends in 1968, 1969, and 1970 from these reserves and claimed relief under section 236 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis that the dividends were distributed out of reserves representing taxed profits up to March 31, 1960. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) denied the relief, arguing that the distributing entity was a new entity and not the same as the original banks that earned the profits. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner (AAC) allowed the claim, but the Tribunal partially upheld and partially denied the relief. The Tribunal held that relief under section 236 was not available for dividends attributed to the profits of Woraiyur Commercial Bank and Palakkarai Bank, as these banks were dissolved. However, it granted relief for the dividends attributed to the taxed profits of Tennur Bank, reasoning that Tennur Bank continued to exist under a new name. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Tennur Bank, despite the name change, remained the same entity that earned the profits and suffered tax thereon. The Court noted that section 236 applies as the taxed profits of Tennur Bank, which had suffered tax prior to April 1, 1960, were distributed as dividends by the same bank, now known as Trichy United Bank. The Court rejected the Department's argument that the taxed profits must be kept intact and separately appropriated for the dividends to qualify for relief under section 236. 2. Maintainability of Appeal against the Income Tax Officer's Order under Section 236: The Department argued that an appeal against the ITO's order under section 236 was not maintainable, contending that section 237, which relates to refunds generally, does not cover orders under section 236. The Tribunal rejected this contention, holding that an appeal is maintainable. The High Court supported the Tribunal's view, stating that section 237 encompasses refunds where the tax paid exceeds the amount properly chargeable. The Court reasoned that a refund under section 236 is essentially a refund of tax already paid, subject to certain calculations, and thus falls within the ambit of section 237. Consequently, an order refusing or partially granting a refund under section 236 is appealable under section 246(n) of the Act. The Court also referred to the legislative history, noting that the relief under section 236 was previously part of the general refund provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court concluded that the restructuring of provisions in the current Act does not alter the substance of the relief, and the order under section 236 is appealable. Conclusion: The High Court answered all the questions in favor of the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision to grant relief under section 236 for dividends distributed from the taxed profits of Tennur Bank and affirming the maintainability of the appeal against the ITO's order under section 236. The Department was ordered to pay the costs of the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
|
