9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant before him by holding it to be dismissed on the ground that the refund under section 237 is not a mistake which could be considered as apparent from record identifiable under section 154 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by holding it to be not legally tenable ignoring the fact that the appeal was filed before him challenging the order dated 30 November 2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai (DCIT) under section 154 of the Act who was subordinate to him. 3. The learned CIT(A) held in not directing the DCIT to grant refund of the additional DDT paid to the extent of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee paid Rs. 39,22,08,900/-. Rs. 98,14,515/- has to be refunded instead of demand of Rs. 8,94,72,701/- as per order giving effect, ii) Interest u/s 234C determined at Rs. 4,34,08,871/- instead of Rs. 23.41.949/-. iii) Suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A of Rs, 64,45,473/- is not considered while making addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A. iv) Short grant of TDS credit of Rs. 43,696/-. On the issue of DDT liability, assessee has submitted copies of challans paid by its subsidiaries on the amount of dividend received from us subsidiaries After verification of challans, it is found that the contention of the assessee is correct. Since the mistake is apparent from record, the same is rectified in this order. Give credit to total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the facts of the case, discussion of the AO in the impugned order, oral contentions and written submissions of the appellant and material available on record. In the facts of the case, there is no dispute that appellant has paid the DOT at Rs. 39,22,08,900/- and the AO in the impugned order has also stated to have verified it and found correct. The AO has also mentioned to grant credit for the same. The refunds given under the Chapter XIX of Income-tax Act and the provisions of section 237 which deal with refunds provides as under: "If any person satisfies the Assessing Officer that the amount of tax paid by him or on his behalf or treated as paid by him or on his behalf for any assessment year exceeds the amount with which he is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the credit and part and parcel of assessee's liability towards the tax paid as defined in section 2(43) of the Act and therefore, the refund u/s.237 of the Act is not a mistake which could be considered as apparent from record rectifiable u/s.154 of the Act. As regards the assessee's contention regarding section 240 and reliance placed on the decision in the case of Gopalan Thygarajan v. CIT (supra), it is stated that there is no differing opinion or position in respect of the same if the refund is due to the assessee consequent to the appeal proceedings, they are to be granted without calling upon the assessee to apply for the refund. However, in the facts of the case as have been discussed hereinabove and in view of the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y assessment year, any amount declared, distributed or paid by such company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise) on or after the 1st day of April, 2003, whether out of current or accumulated profits shall be charged to additional income-tax (hereafter referred to as tax on distributed profits) at the rate of fifteen per cent. (1A) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be reduced by,- [(i) the amount of dividend, if any, received by the domestic company during the financial year, if such dividend is received from its subsidiary and,- (a) where such subsidiary is a domestic company, the subsidiary has paid the tax which is payable under this section on such dividend; or (b) where such subsidiary is a foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of tax paid by him or on his behalf or treated as paid by him or on his behalf for any assessment year exceeds the amount with which he is properly chargeable under the Act for that year, he shall be entitled to a refund of the excess amount. The case of the petitioner would, thus, be clearly covered under the said statutory provisions." Hence, Hon'ble High Court has expounded that DDT is an amount of tax paid for which refund can be claimed. 10. Hence, we are of the opinion learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that DDT cannot be considered income tax paid and refund cannot be granted. As regards the plea that the claim is not maintainable under section 154 of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer in his order has duly agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
