TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (2) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. and also the managing director of its managing agents, M. L. Dahanukar & Co. Ltd. The assessee held 750 ordinary shares and 500 6% preference shares in the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. At the general meeting held on the 24th September, 1953, the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. declared dividends on the ordinary and preference shares in respect of the accounting year ended on the 30th September, 1952. The dividend amounts due to the assessee in respect of his ordinary and preference shares came to Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 3,000, respectively. In the financial year 1953-54, which was the accounting year of the assessee, dividends were also declared by certain other companies in which the assessee held shares and thus on the div....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 as dividend from the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. in respect of the ordinary and preference shares held by the assessee. Since the assessment for the assessment year 1954-55 was already completed, the Income-tax Officer reopened the same under section 34 and reassessed the income by inclusion of the said amount of Rs. 63,000 as well as the further amount of Rs. 5,735, which also constituted the dividend declared in the previous year corresponding to the said assessment year and liable to be included in the said assessment. The Income-tax Officer also issued a notice to the assessee under section 28(3) for penalty proceedings and in the said proceedings levied a penalty of Rs. 37,000 under section 28(1)(c) since, in his view, the assessee, by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had put forward only meant ignorance of law on his part and could not, therefore, be accepted. In the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation which the assessee had given and held that, in view of the said explanation and the conduct of the assessee, it was not possible to hold that there was any deliberate intention on the part of the appellant to conceal his income or to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof. In that view of the matter he allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the order of penalty passed by the Income-tax Officer. In the further appeal, which was taken by the department to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by the Tribunal, di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doubtedly true that at one time the view was taken that the date of the declaration of the dividend was the date which was to be taken into account to find out in which year the dividend income was to be included. It has, however, been later on pointed out by the Supreme Court that it is neither the date of the declaration nor the date when it is actually paid, but the date or the time when the company makes the dividend unconditionally payable to the shareholders that is the material time to be considered for the inclusion of the dividend income in the income of the assessee. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, that the assessee was guilty of concealment because he had not included the dividend income of the year in which it is decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 1955-56 for the first time he included an amount of dividend on the basis of the date of declaration. According to the assessee's explanation this was because it was after the completion of his assessment for the assessment year 1954-55 that he learnt in casual discussions with his acquaintances that the dividends had to be included in the return on the basis of the date of declaration. Now, the assessment for the assessment year 1954-55 was completed on the 24th February, 1955, and the return for the assessment year 1955-56 was filed on the 2nd May, 1956. According to the assessee's explanation, some time after 28th February, 1955, and before 2nd May, 1956, he appears to have been enlightened on the question as to the correct time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the assessee waited till the 25th June, 1956, and did not file the revised return earlier or at the time when the return for the assessment year 1955-56 was submitted on May 2, 1956 ? It is only because of the enquiry which the Income-tax Officer appears to have made with the assessee on the 13th June, 1956, that the assessee has thought it desirable to come out with a revised return on the 25th June, 1956. It is argued by him that if no such enquiries were made, the assessee would never have proceeded to make the revised return. It is true no doubt that the assessee could have made the revised return much earlier than the 25th June, 1956, when he actually made it. But the mere circumstance that he did not do so would not be sufficie....