TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds of appeal: (i) Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that no income from attached asset can be assessed in the hands of appellant. (iii) Ld.CIT(A) erred in making the addition on account of dividend income of Rs. 11,06,948/- (iv) Ld CIT(A) erred in treating STCG offered at Rs. 344742/-as income from shares trading business. (v) Ld CIT(A) erred in not granting deduction on account of interest expenses. (vi) Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest under section 233A,234B and 234C of the Act. (vii) Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest under section 220(2) of the Act. 2. The briefs facts of the case are that assessee Company engaged in the business activity of hiring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee again filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but no relief was granted on this addition, thus the assessee filed this second appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Dharmesh Shah Advocate ('ld AR') for assessee and Dr. Daniel Special Standing Counsel ('ld DR') of the revenue and perused the material available on record. At the outset the ld AR of the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground No 1, 2 and 4. Thus, in view of the statement of the ld AR for the assessee the Ground No. 1, 2 and 4 are dismissed. 4. The Ground No 3 relates to the addition on account of dividend income of Rs. 11, 06,948/-. The Ld AR of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o No. NZO-1673. It was further argued that the assessee made all these submission before the AO as well as before First Appellate Authority but despite furnishing all the information and making submission in writing the lower authorities, the dividend income was added in the income of assessee in the year under consideration, though it has been offered and taxed in subsequent year. The AO made the addition on the basis of letter dated 12.01.1999 allegedly received by auditors from Mazda Industries and leasing ltd. The assessee demanded the copy of letter dated 12.01.1999 but it was never shown to the assessee. The ld AR of the assessee to strengthen his contention relied upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs Jai Devi A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id year. The assessee further contended that the dividend warrant itself issued on 27th of August 1993. The contention of assessee was not accepted by AO. The AO concluded that as per s.8 of the Act dividend is taxable in the year in which it is declared.Thus, any dividend declared during the financial year 1992-93 is taxable in AY 1993- 94 irrespective of whether assessee actually received it or not.The ld.CIT(A)while considering this ground of appeal concluded that assessee was following Mercantile System of Accounting and dividend income should have been offered for taxation irrespective of date of receipt and rejected the submission of assessee. We have notice that the lower authorities have failed to bring on record any evidence as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d September 29, 1967, had restrained Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd from paying dividend on the said Shares to anyone till further orders. The restrain order continued till May 26, 1972. Thus, during the year under consideration, i.e, the accounting year ending June 30, 1970, the petitioners right to receive dividend was under suspension because of the restrained order passed by the court. In such circumstances, the dividend declared by the company could not be said to have been accrued to the assessee because neither could the company pay the same to the assessee nor could the assessee recover it till the restrained order was vacated." The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Nagri Mills Co Ltd (supra) while dealing with the ratio wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the same in the present assessment year as well as in the subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the dispute raised by the revenue is entirely academic or at the best may have a minor tax effect. There, was therefore, no need for revenue to continue with this litigation when it is quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on merits) but also that it may not have added anything much to the public coffers." Now turning to the facts of the case in hand the assessee categorically asserted before the lower authorities that the said dividend income was received in the subsequent year. We have noticed that the letter written by Special Auditor was not confronted to the assessee. The date of declaration of dividend by M/s Mazda Industries a....