WHISTLING WOODS INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 556/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1697 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMPRIYA RAGHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVRAM
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.556/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S WHISTLING WOODS INTERNATIONAL LTD, FILM CITY COMPLEX, GOREGAON(E) MUMBAI 400 065 VS ITO 9(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD. MUMBAI-20 PAN : AAACW4307R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. K SHIVRAM RESPONDENT BY MISS RAMPRIYA RAGHAVAN DATE OF HEARING : 24-11-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, MUMBAI [HE REINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)] DATED 17-10-2014 PASSED AGAINST THE RECTIFI CATION ORDER U/S 154 OF THE AO DATED 13-09-2013 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING APPLICATION U/S. 154 WI THOUT APPRECIATING THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION ON DIVIDEND INCOME ON UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND RS.48,90, 114/- U/S. 10(35) OF INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. 2 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT ALLOWED THE SET OFF OR EXPENSES. AGAINST INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES, HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF DIVIDEND INCOME ON MUTUAL FUNDS AS ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE FROM THE P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET WH ICH WERE FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS EXEMPTION U/S 154 WAS ALLOWED FOR THE A.Y.2005-06. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE AS BROUGHT OUT BEFORE US ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 10-01-2001. T HE COMPANY HAD COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITIES AS PER THE MAIN OBJECT OF ESTABLISHING RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES THERE TO. THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENED DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES ACCOUNT FOR ACCOUNTING INCOME AND EXPENSES TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF THE INSTITUTE. IN THE SAID ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF THE DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED F ROM MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 48,23,594/- AGAINST ITS EXPENSES. BUT, THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 26-09-2006 TREATED THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPO SITS, INTEREST RECEIVED ON LOAN AND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS (I.E. DIVIDEND ) AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DID NOT REDUCE THE SAME FROM DEV ELOPMENT EXPENSES. FINALLY, THE MATTER REACHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WH ERE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED A GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT ALTERNATIVELY, ITS DIVIDEN D INCOME SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(35) OF THE ACT. BUT THE T RIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE ON THE GROUND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND THER EFORE, NO RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL RECOMPUTED THE ENTIRE INCOME WHICH WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AND NO EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED U/S 57 IN VI EW OF THE ORDER OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, THE AO DID NOT ALSO GRANT EXEMP TION ON THE DIVIDEND INCOME. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION U/ S 154 DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2014 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- DEAR SIR, WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR TH E ABOVE YEAR, WE WRITE TO YOU AS UNDER :- WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR CONTENTION IN THE APPEAL F ILED AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER WE HAVE TO REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY PA SS AN ORDER RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS STAT ED BELOW AND OBLIGE. SIR, WHILE TREATING THE INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUND AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 76,40,047/-, OUT OF WHICH THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 48,90,114/- FOR BEING DIVIDEND ON UNITS OF MUTU AL FUND WHICH IS EXEMPTED IS NOT CONSIDERED FOR EXEMPTION. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(35) ON THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FR OM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED HIMSELF WHILE RE -COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAXING THE AFORESAID INC OME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BUT, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS ON THE GRO UND THAT NO RELIEF COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 154. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, ARGUMENTS W ERE MADE IN DETAIL BY THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT AS PER LAW AND FACTS OF THIS CASE, DIV IDEND INCOME ON UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS. 48,90,114/- RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(35). THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT 4 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION, AS A RESULT OF W HICH THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED MORE THAN THE AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT SIMILAR SITUATION AROSE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN PETITION WAS MADE U /S 154 TO THE AO, AND THE AO VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 154 DATED 10-0 6-2008 HAD GRANTED REQUISITE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY GRANTING BENEFI T OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(35) ON THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,70,674/-. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, BY NOT GRANTING EXEMPTIO N IN THIS YEAR FOR THE IDENTICAL AMOUNT, THERE WAS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WHICH REQUIRED NECESSARY REC TIFICATION FOR WHICH APPLICATION U/S 154 WAS FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FRO M THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND THE AO SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED TH E APPLICATION BY GRANTING BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION DUE TO THE ASSESSEE A S PER LAW AND FACTS OF THIS CASE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO D ENIAL TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(35) BUT ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGI NAL PROCEEDINGS, THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN WRONGLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. I N THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION WAS AN ALTERN ATIVE CLAIM AND ITS NEED AROSE ONLY WHEN THE DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN A SSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E FOR ITS SET OFF AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AS WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS A BOUNDEN DUTY UPON THE SHOULDERS OF THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME AS PER LAW AND TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER PLA IN PROVISIONS OF LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THIS REGARD UPON THE CIRCULA R ISSUED BY THE CBDT DATED 11-04-1955 WHEREIN IT WAS INSTRUCTED TO THE R EVENUE OFFICERS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT TAKE UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNORAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE 5 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ASSESSED S TRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GRANTING PROPER RELIEF DUE TO THE AS SESSEE AS PER LAW. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS CLAIM MADE U/S 154 HAS R IGHTLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGU MENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO THE ORDERS PASSED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ONLY DISPUTE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED BY US IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(35) UP ON THE DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FROM MUTUAL FUNDS DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTIN G TO RS.48,90,114/-, THEN WHETHER THE SAME CAN BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSE E, IF THE CLAIM OF SUCH BENEFIT WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, BUT MA DE THROUGH PETITION U/S 154 ONLY WHEN ITS NEED AROSE AS A RESULT OF RE-COMP UTING OF INCOME BY THE AO. 8. WE HAVE ANALYSED FULL FACTS OF THIS CASE AND ALSO EXAMINED LEGAL POSITION UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAW AS WOULD BE APPLICABLE UND ER SUCH SITUATIONS, AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY VARIOUS COURTS IN OUR COUNTRY TIME TO TIME. IN THIS REGARD IT IS FIRSTLY NOTED BY US THAT ORIGINAL RETU RN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED BY SETTING OFF ENTIRE INCOME (INCLUDING IMPUGNED DI VIDEND INCOME) AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR, AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AFTER DEBITING T HE AFORESAID INCOME WAS ADDED TO THE CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS. THUS, T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THE IMPUGNED DIVIDEND INCOME FROM THE UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS TAXABLE. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NO T ACCEPT THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS, BUT SEPARATELY BROUGHT TO TA X THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME AND DIVIDEND INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. THE ASSESSEE 6 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 CONTESTED ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUT HORITIES. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS ULTIMATELY UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FROM UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS COULD HAVE ARISEN ONLY AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AO WHEREIN THE IMPUGNED INCOME WAS HEL D AS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE AO. AT THIS STA GE, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER CLAIMS AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW, SO AS TO ENABLE THE AO TO COMPUTE TAXABLE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ANY SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE AO TO TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER PASSING OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION U/S 154 BEFORE THE AO POINTING OUT THAT ITS INCOME SHOULD B E ASSESSED AS PER LAW ONLY, AND THEREFORE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(35) WITH RESPECT DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM MUTUAL F UNDS SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THE AO FOR DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GRO UND THAT TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME HAD ATTAINED FINALITY ON THE BASIS OF OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 9. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH VIEWS OF THE LD. AO ON THIS A SPECT, SINCE IN OUR OPINION WHAT ATTAINED FINALITY AT THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME AND DIVIDEND INCOME SHOULD B E ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IT WOULD NOT BE ADJUSTED AG AINST THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, AS WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RET URN. BUT, THE OTHER ASPECT WHETHER ANY PART OF THE AFORESAID INCOME WAS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OR NOT, WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE T RIBUNAL. THUS, IT WAS OPEN BEFORE THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME AS PER LAW AFTER GRANTING REQUISITE EXEMPTION. 7 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 10. THE SECOND OBSTACLE MENTIONED BY THE AO FOR GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO SUCH RELIEF COULD HAVE BEEN GI VEN U/S 154, SINCE ONLY A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIF IED AND NOT ANY DEBATABLE ISSUE. IN THIS REGARD, IT HAS BEEN BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AO HAD HIMSELF CARRIED OUT RECTIFICATION U/S 154 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10-06- 2008 FOR A. Y. 2005-06 WHEREIN BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION HAS BEEN GRANTED UPON THE IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIV ED FROM MUTUAL FUNDS. RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO U/S 154 FOR AY 2005-06 READS AS UNDER:- ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE, M/S. SHAMIT MAJUMDAR ASSOCIATES, C.AS., VIDE LETTER DATED.18.2.2008 HAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 14 3(3), WHILE. TREATING THE INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUND AS LNCOME 'FRO M OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 11,08,963/-, OUT OF WHICH 'THE DEDUC TION OF RS. 7,79,674/- FOR BEING DIVIDEND ON UNITS OF MUTUAL FU ND WHICH IS EXEMPTED IS NOT CONSIDERED FOR EXEMPTION. IN THIS R EGARD, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS. 2. ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3), ASSES SEE'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS WITH R EGARD TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME OF MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS7,79 ,674/-. NOW, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED' THE LEDGER COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF DIVIDEND ON UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND. AS THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3), THE SAME ARE SUBMITTED NOW, WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. HENCE, ASSESSMENT IS HEREBY RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE REVISED TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMP UTED AS UNDER:- I) RENT INCOME RECEIVED RS. 10,836/- 8 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 II) (A) INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSIT RS. 88,04 7/- (B) INTEREST ON LOANS RS.7,11,717/- (C) INCOME FROM UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND RS.11,08,963/- LESS : DEDUCTION AS RS. 7,79,674/- RS. 3,39,289/- REVISED TOTAL INCOME RS.11,39,889 11. THUS, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO HAD HIMSELF GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AND THAT T OO U/S 154. THUS, THE AO WAS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS FACT THAT DIVIDEND I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(35) . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NOT GRANTING SIMILAR RELIEF BY THE AO IN THE YEAR B EFORE US, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RE CORDS. FURTHER, COURTS HAVE TIME AND AGAIN HELD THAT IF TECHNICAL CONSIDER ATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, IT IS THE LATTER WHICH PRE VAILS. MOREOVER, ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR COUNTRY CLEARLY STIP ULATES THAT NO TAX CAN BE COLLECTED EXCEPT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. THUS, M AIN OBJECT OF THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS IS TO ENABLE THE AO TO COMPU TE THE TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX PAYABLE THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. THE ROLE ASSIGNED TO THE AO BY THE LEGISLATURE IS QUITE ONEROUS. WHIL E PERFORMING THIS ROLE OBJECTIVITY SHOULD ALWAYS BE MAINTAINED. THEREFORE, THE AO SHOULD NOT TAKE UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE A ND SHOULD FOLLOW A FAIR APPROACH BY ALLOWING LEGITIMATE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE SO THAT ONLY THAT AMOUNT OF TAX IS RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE W HICH IS DUE AS PER LAW. IN THIS MANNER, THE FAITH OF THE TAX PAYERS UPON TH E WORKING OF INCOME TAX 9 I.T.A. NO.552/MUM/2015 DEPARTMENT SHALL INCREASE, WHICH SHALL IN TURN GIVE A BOOST TO VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE BY THE TAXPAYERS. 12. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES IT WAS SEE N BY US THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM KOTAK MUTUAL FUND WHICH IS DULY ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEM PTION U/S 10(35). NO DOUBTS WERE RAISED BY THE LD. DR ALSO IN THIS REGAR D BEFORE US. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AO SHOULD HAVE GRANTED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS , WE DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(35) WITH RESP ECT TO IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FROM MUTUAL FUND . 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS _30 TH _DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 PK/- COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , G-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES