Tribunal upholds tax levy for failure to declare dividends despite profits

The tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal, upholding the levy of tax under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for failure to declare dividends despite having sufficient profits. The tribunal found the order valid, dismissing arguments regarding past losses, loan repayments, and profit considerations as unsubstantiated. It held that section 104 applies even when no dividends are declared, emphasizing the requirement for companies to distribute profits. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the imposition of tax and emphasizing compliance with dividend distribution obligations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of tax under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the order passed under section 104 without prior approval of the IAC.
3. Justification for not declaring dividends due to past losses, repayment of unsecured loans, and other financial considerations.
4. Applicability of section 104 when no dividend is declared.
5. Reasonableness of the amount of profit considered for dividend distribution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Tax under Section 104:
The assessee was levied a tax of Rs. 23,050 under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1984-85. The Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded under section 104 on the grounds that the assessee failed to declare any dividend within 12 months from the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The assessee contended that past losses and the need to repay unsecured loans made it impossible to declare dividends. However, the AO rejected these reasons and imposed the tax.

2. Validity of the Order Passed under Section 104 Without Prior Approval of the IAC:
The assessee challenged the validity of the order under section 104 on the grounds that the AO did not obtain prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) as required by section 107. The notice from the IAC required the assessee to appear on 28-3-1988, but the date was changed to 25-3-1988 by hand. The assessee argued that this change was to conceal the violation of section 107, which mandates prior approval from the IAC. However, the tribunal found no defect in the proceedings, noting that the approval and the order could be given on the same day without violating the law.

3. Justification for Not Declaring Dividends:
The assessee argued that past losses, the need to repay unsecured loans, and small profit balances justified not declaring dividends. However, the tribunal noted that the loss claimed in the preceding year was not accepted by the AO, and the assessment was made on positive income. The balance-sheet showed unsecured loans but also significant current assets, indicating no immediate need to retain funds for loan repayment. The tribunal also dismissed the argument that the profit balance was too small, noting that the net profit carried to the profit and loss appropriation account was Rs. 3,07,952, which was sufficient for declaring dividends.

4. Applicability of Section 104 When No Dividend is Declared:
The assessee argued that section 104 applies only when a company declares dividends less than the statutory limit, not when no dividend is declared. The tribunal disagreed, stating that section 104 requires every company to declare and distribute dividends up to a certain minimum limit. Accepting the assessee's plea would mean that companies not declaring any dividend would not attract tax, whereas those declaring less would, which is not the intent of the law.

5. Reasonableness of the Amount of Profit Considered for Dividend Distribution:
The assessee contended that the profit amount considered for dividend distribution was incorrect. The tribunal accepted that the commercial profit carried to the profit and loss appropriation account was Rs. 3,07,952, not Rs. 3,96,540. However, it found no justification for retaining profits for investments in land or future advances to M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd., as these did not justify not declaring dividends.

Conclusion:
The tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal, holding that the assessee was required by law to distribute its profit by way of dividends, which was not done. The plea regarding the adjustment of past losses and other financial considerations was not substantiated. The order under section 104 was found to be valid and in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed.

---