9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,977/-. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has failed to appreciate that the dividend income is exempt u/s. 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Assessing Officer was duty bound not to treat the said dividend income as taxable income. 2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of business loss of 85,18,854/- by treating the same as speculation loss. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant company is dealing in shares and they also have be brokerage income and the loss on sale purchase of units is a business loss and the provisions of explanation to Section 73 are not applicable to the facts of the case. 3. In this case ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT and the ITAT held as under:- It is also noticed that while deciding Ground No. 2 of assessee s appeal directed against non-allowance of dividend income of ₹ 80,45,977/- as exempt u/s. 10(33), the learned C.I.T.(A) has ignored the certificate of registration stating that only a faint photocopy of the certificate is attached but nothing is legible. After considering the entire facts of the present case, we are of the view that the learned C.I.T.(A) has not given effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee before disposing of its appeal. In the case of Radhika Charan Banerjee vs. Sambhalpur Municipality, AIR 1979 Orissa 69, it has been held that A right of appeal wherever conferred includes a right of being afforded an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of SEBI registering Sun F C Mutual Fund with them, dividend income of ₹ 80,45,977/- is exempt u/s. 10(35)(a) (and not 10(33) as claimed by the assessee), the loss of ₹ 85,18,584/- from sale of units is also treated as business loss and not speculative loss since units of mutual funds is not shares and does not fall in the mischief of explanation to Section 73. The decision of Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. cited by assessee is not relevant as that was about purchase and sale of units of UTI; in the instant case it is sale of units of a mutual fund approved by SEBI. The computation of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration alongwith original return was as under:- Profit as per P L A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time allowed u/s. 139(5) of the Act and there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to revise the computation of income after the expiry of such time limit. 8. There is no dispute that revised computation of income was filed during the assessment proceedings without revising the return of income within the time allowed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Since the assessee had not filed any revised return within the time allowed u/s. 139(5), any revised computation which has the effect of revising the return cannot be entertained and allowed by the Assessing Officer. It cannot be allowed at this stage of appeal proceeding also because the time for filing revised return was over and this claim being belated cannot be entertained. In support the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the assessee s plea at the threshold by placing reliance on the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. 284 ITR 323, wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain the claim for deduction otherwise than by filing the revised return. In this regard, we have carefully considered the issue. We find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case Goetze India Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (Supra), while concluding has remarked that however, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We further find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
