Delhi High Court
Delhi Tourism And T.D.C. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of I.T.-Ii on 4 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006) 205 CTR Del 471, 131 (2006) DLT 607
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: T Thakur, S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Page 1714
1. The appellant filed return for the Assessment Year 1995-96 disclosing a total income of Rs. 3,43,09,480/-. The appellant had claimed a deduction of electricity charges of Rs. 2,10,845/- and claimed another deduction of an amount of Rs. 29,12,000/- under Section 80-M. The Assessing Officer had disallowed deduction of Rs. 2,10,845/- being expenditure of the period prior to the assessment year and also disallowed deduction under Section 80-M. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Further appeal was filed by the appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed. An additional ground was raised before the Appellate Tribunal with regard to the charge of interest under Section 234-A of Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.
2. A dividend of Rs. 72,80,000/- was received by the appellant during the year under consideration and a deduction of 2/5th of the said amount was claimed by the assessed under Section 80-M on the ground that a dividend of Rs. 36,82,510/- was distributed by it. The deduction so claimed under Section 80-M was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT (A) on the ground even though the dividend was declared by the assessed before the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) i.e 30.11.1995, the same was actually distributed only after the due date by a cheque drawn on 08.12.1995.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that a Resolution for payment of proposed dividend of Rs. 36,82,510/- was approved in the Annual General Meeting of the assessed company held on 30.10.1995. Since the approval of payment of dividend had been done, irrespective of the fact that the dividend was actually paid on 8th December 1995 the assessed was entitled for deduction under Section 80-M.
4. Section 80-M reads as under:
80M. Deduction in respect of certain inter-corporate dividends.
(1) Where the gross total income of a domestic company, in any previous year, includes any income by way of dividends from another domestic company, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of such domestic company, a deduction of an amount equal to so much of the amount of income by way of dividends from another domestic company as does not exceed the amount of dividend distributed by the first-mentioned domestic company on or before the due date.
(2) Where any deduction, in respect of the amount of dividend distributed by the domestic company, has been allowed under Sub-section (1) in any previous year, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such amount in any other previous year.
Page 1715
Explanation : For the purposes of this section, the expression 'due date' means the date for furnishing the return of income under Sub-section (1) of Section 139.
5. It is apparent from reading of the above section that deduction under this Section is in respect of dividend distributed and not in respect of dividend declared. Dividend distributed means dividend actually paid to the shareholders. If the dividend has not been paid to the shareholders and mere a Resolution has been passed, it cannot be said that dividend stands distributed. The Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was a wholly owned Government Company and once the Resolution was passed it should be deemed that dividend has been distributed.
6. We consider that when the provisions of the statute are very clear and unambiguous, no other meaning can be given to the provisions except what is clear from the language. The Court cannot, by way of interpretation put additional words into the statute. Section 80-M of I. T. Act requires that the dividend should have been distributed before the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act. If this requirement of law is not complied with and a mere Resolution is passed of declaring the dividend that would not satisfy requirement under Section 80-M for claiming deduction. No deeming provision can be introduced into the section and section cannot be interpreted to say that if dividend has been declared or a Resolution has been passed, deduction under Section 80-M should be given.
7. The CIT and Tribunal both have disallowed electricity charges to the extent of Rs. 2,10,845/- since that related to the period prior to 01.04.1994. The contention of the assessed that since bill was received by assessed on 29.04.1997, the entire bill amount should be allowed to be deducted from the assessment year in question is contrary to law. The electricity charges for electricity consumed is a known expenditure to the assesse and assessed, on the basis of average, could make provision for this expenditure for every year of assessment even if no bill is received in a particular year of assessment. assessed has failed to claim this expenditure in the earlier assessment year, and if the assessed, has failed to discharge this duty of providing for a known expenditure, the assessed cannot claim the same expenditure in subsequent assessment years.
8. We find no ground to admit this appeal. No substantial question of law arises out of the order of ITAT. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
