9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.09.2004, a coordinate Bench had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in directing the assessing officer to allow the deduction under sec. 80M on the dividend income of Rs.62,10,000/- on units of UTI which was not originally claimed in the return of income but was claimed subsequently through application under sec.154 for the first time after the completion of the assessment. (b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in directing to allow deduction under sec.80M without considering the provisions of Section 80A(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961 which provide that the maximum limit of deduction under the Chapter VI-A shall not, in any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived on the units of UTI, but the said claim cannot be accepted under Section 154 of the Act. The claim for deduction under Section 80M on dividend income of Rs.62,10,000/- on the units of UTI, was made for the first time by the assessee. After the finalization of regular assessment, the A.O. considered the application of the assessee under Section 154 of the Act and allowed the deduction under Section 80M only to the extent of Rs.8,39,174/- which was claimed in the original return. Thus, there was no mistake apparent on the face of record and, therefore, the A.O. has rightly restricted the deduction under Section 80M to Rs.8,39,174/- only. The Tribunal has wrongly directed to allow more deduction under Section 80M. He further submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should:- (a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." Further, learned counsel placed the reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra Mills, (2000) 243 ITR 57 S.C. Needless to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax U.P., and others, (1986) 16 ITR 159, observed that : " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -corporate dividends-(1) Where the gross total income of a domestic company, in any previous year, includes any income by way of dividends from another domestic company, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of such domestic company, a deduction of an amount equal to so much of the amount of income by way of dividends from another domestic company as does not exceed the amount of dividend distributed by the first-mentioned domestic company on or before the due date. (2) Where any deduction, in respect of the amount of dividend distributed by the domestic company, has been allowed under sub-section (1) in any previous year, no deduction shall be allowed in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
