Mr. B. Sen, learned Counsel for the assessee company, tried to give a different shaRe. to the case in the course of his arguments. He, rn our opm10n, nghtly did not base his urguments B on the grounds relied on by the Tribunal and the High Court. On the other hand, he contended that on a proper interpretation of the relevant pro'isions of the Act, it would be seen that the scheme of the Act, in the matter of levying tax on dividend income is that the Income-tax Officer should adopt a uniform method in assessing both the company declaring dividends as well as its shareholders who receive the dividend. In support c of this theory of his he r>lied on ss. 12(1-A), 16(2), 18(5), 20 and 35(9) of the Act. Dividend is treated as income in view of s. 12(1-A). Net dividend receivd by the shareholder is grossed up for inclusion in the total income of the assessee under s. 16 ( 2). Section 18 ( 5) provides for refund of the tax paid on the dividend income by the company which has distributed D dividend. Section 20 provides for the issuance of a certificate showing the gross dividend, tax payable on that dividend and the net dividend. Section 35(9) empowers the Income-tax Officer to recover from the person who receives dividend the tax in respect of the same, payable by the company which distributed the dividend but in fact not paid by that company within the E prescribed time. On the basis of these provisions, he urged that if the dividend paid in kind is valued In one manner in the hands of the company ,which distributed it and in a different manner in the hands of the person who received it, then the assessee will not be able to get the reflll!1d to which he would have been entitled to had that property been valued properly in the hands of the distributing company. Therefore, he urged that we must spell out the scheme put forward by him. Ingenious, though the argument is, it rests on no foundation. There is no provision in the Act which makes the assessment of income dependent on refund. The provisions relating to assessment are independent of refund though the provisions relating to refund may depend on assessment. Equitable considerations are not rel·~vant in interG preting the provisions of a taxing statute, apart from the fact the equity pleaded in this case is remote possibility. None of the provisions relied on by Mr. Sen affnrd any basis for the scheme sought to be established bv him.
