, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6854/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR.6(1), R. NO.506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. ARTHA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. TIMES TOWER, 5 TH FLOOR, KAMALA MILLS COMPOUND, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013 ( / REVENUE) ( !'#$ /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AAGCA8011Q / REVENUE BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN.V.P.-DR !'#$ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA % ! & ' $( / DATE OF HEARING 23/04/2015 ' $( / DATE OF ORDER: 23/04/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/09/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, ARTHA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 2 MUMBAI, ON THE GROUNDS AS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR, SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN , ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE G ROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A PUBLIC LTD. COMPANY, IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING FINANCIAL SERVICES, DECLARED LOSS OF RS.1,12,82,243/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSE SSMENT DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,03,32,181/- WHICH WAS WRONGLY NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETU RN FILED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED IN WRITING TO CONSI DER THE SAME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE SAME. ON APPEAL, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STA TEMENT OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2009, THE AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED AS DIVIDEND RECEIVED IN SCHEDULE 19 OF TH E FINANCIAL STATEMENT. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT NO OBSERVATIO N WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND AMOUNT WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER IT WAS EVIDENT THAT T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE RECEIVED THE DIVIDEND OF RS.1,03,32,181/- AND HE MADE DISALL OWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. FACT REMAINS THAT INCOM E HAS TO BE TAXED AS PER LAW. EVEN IF, THE ASSESSEE INADVERT ENTLY COULD ARTHA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 3 NOT REDUCE THE EXEMPT INCOME FROM COMPUTATION OF IN COME, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE TH E SAME AND TO DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RED UCE THE IMPUGNED DIVIDEND FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME AS THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED IS EXEMPT U/S 10(35) OF THE A CT. NO CONTRARY MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVE NUE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS AFFIRMED, RESULTING INTO DISMISSA L OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 23/04/2015. SD/- SD/- ( R.C.SHARMA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; *! DATED : 23/04/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. !. . &%'()*)+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,-. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % 1$ ( +, ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. P. % 1$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 3 4 /$!' , +,( +'5 , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7& / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 03,$ /$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI