9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an extent. It is was for the Tribunal to have extensively carried out the exercise and scrutinise the order of the Assessing Officer, whether the order deserved to be upheld on the issue. That having not been done, we set aside both the initial orders of the Tribunal as also orders on the Miscellaneous Application dated 12th June, 2013 and 7th March, 2014 respectively. We restore Income Tax Appeal to the file of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal that the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. While deciding the appeal afresh Tribunal should allow the assessee to contend that the disallowance worked by the Assessing Officer, particularly the assessee's without prejudice and alternative submission should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany is engaged in the business of share and debt broking, trading in Debt securities, Mutual Fund Distribution and other financial services. The assessee also made investments in shares and debt securities. The Assessing Officer summarized the issues interalia for his consideration. One of which was expenditure attributable to earn exempt income. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received dividend income of ₹ 44,91,580/. This claim is exempt under section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was also observed that the assessee has allocated an amount of ₹ 1,75,583/only in earning the dividend income. The assessee was asked during the course of scrutiny of assessment proceeding as to why expenditure incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 8D at ₹ 39,19,175/which was over and above the disallowance as done by the Assessing Officer but adjusting that amount of ₹ 1,75,883/, the Tribunal made a disallowance. 7. From the record it appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this part of the order a Rectification Application was made invoking section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Rectification Applications styled as M.A. No. 447 448/MUM/2013 were disposed of on 7th March, 2014 but the Tribunal held that there is no mistake which needs to be rectified. 8. We have heard Mr. Dastur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner who, as above would submit that there was a patent and obvious error in the initial order of the Tribunal da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fall back on alternative disallowance computed by the assessee and that too without prejudice has not been clarified at all. In the initial order as well as in the order on the Miscellaneous Application for rectification the Tribunal has assigned the same reasons. We do not think that a without prejudice submission and made strictly in the alternative should have influenced the tribunal to such an extent. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances it was for the Tribunal to have extensively carried out the exercise and scrutinise the order of the Assessing Officer, whether the order deserved to be upheld on the issue. That having not been done, we set aside both the initial orders of the Tribunal as also orders on the Miscellaneous Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
