9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t showed a dividend income of ₹ 74,042. As to the shares upon which the said dividend amounts had been received, the assessee company could establish the ownership of only a few which accounted for a net dividend of ₹ 117-3-0 out of the sum of ₹ 69,275 for the assessment year 1947-48 and a few more which accounted for a dividend income of ₹ 140-10-0 out of the sum of ₹ 74,042 for the assessment year 1948-49. The Income Tax Officer refused to gross up the rest of the dividend income on the ground that as the assessee had not proved itself to have been the holder of the shares concerned at the time the dividend was declared, it was not entitled to the benefit of Section 18 (5) of the Act. That decision of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt came to be heard the issue as to the ownership of the shares seems to have been reagitated and the two members of the Tribunal who signed the statement of the case say that the assessees case that the shares had been lodged as security with the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation had been confirmed by the bank by their letters of 17th January, 1949, and 29th December, 1949, and that it was not disputed that such was the position. How the two members of the Tribunal who composed the statement of the case could have made that statement, it is impossible to see. It is perfectly opposed to the statement in the appellate order itself and one does not understand how, if the certificate of 17th January, 1949, and the letter of 29th Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all. It has been a frequency experience this session to find two members of a Tribunal deciding a particular case in a particular manner and one of those members, acting with a third member, stating a case for this Court which differed materially from the case made and found at the hearing of the appeal. We shall not say, out of respect for the Tribunal, that the members have acted in a careless manner, but we feel bound to say that the manner in which they have discharged their duty of drawing up statement of cases for this Court can only be called care free. Reverting now to the facts of the present case, the question which has been referred is as follows :- Whether on the above facts and in the circumstances of this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid. If then Section 18 (5) provides that the sum by which a dividend amount is grossed up shall be treated as payment of tax on behalf of the shareholder, it only provides that the credit for the payment can be claimed by the person who stands registered for the time being as the holder of the shares and by him alone. It appears to have been contended before the Tribunal that the shares were now being held partly by nominees of the bank and partly by nominees of the assessee and that such nominees were the present registered holders. The Tribunal disbelieved that case, as I have already stated, and pointed out further that up to the stage of the appeal before it the assessees case had always been that shares were still standing in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
