, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH C, KOLKATA () BEFORE , , , , , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / M.A.NO.12/KOL/2012 A/O ITA NO . 56/KOL/2011 %& '(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 (*+ / APPELLANT ) M/S.VRINDAVAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., KOLKATA (PAN: AAACV 8987 C) - % - - VERSUS - . (-.*+/ RESPONDENT ) D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA *+ / 0 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL -.*+ / 0 '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.K.MALAKAR 1%2 / !# /DATE OF HEARING : 20.04.2012 3' / !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2012. '4 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) )) ), , , , '# PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.07.2011 VIDE ITA NO. 56/KOL/2011 PERTAINING TO A.YR. .2007-08. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNS EL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE TWO MISTAKE S APPARENT FROM RECORD. ONE IS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN ITA NO.56/KOL/2011 IS 2006-07 WHEREAS IN THE TRI BUNAL ORDER A.YR.IS MENTIONED 2 AS 2007-08. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS TRIBUN AL HAS MENTIONED THAT RULE 8D R.W. SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE TO THE A.Y.2007-08 I.E. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO RECTIFY THE MIST AKES 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION FOR THE SAID REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE FIRST MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IS FACTUALLY WRONG. IN FORM NO.36 FILED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED IN COL.6 IS 2007-08. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ALSO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS MENTIONED AS 2007-08 AT SL.NO.3. WHEREAS IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 2006-07 AT SL. NO.5. BUT IN T HE BODY OF THE ORDER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT DURING THE F.Y.2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.30,97,71,574/- AND CLAIMED TH E SAID AMOUNTS AS INCOME NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF S ECTIONS 10(34) OF THE I.T.ACT. FROM THIS IT IS EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEAL IS PERTAINING T O A.YR. 2007-08. THEREFORE WE FIND NO MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSES SEE. 4.1. AS REGARDING THE OTHER ONE WE REPLACE PARA 7 O F THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING ONE :- AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING 1% OF DIVIDEND INCO ME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14 A ARE APPLICABLE FROM A.YR. 2008-09. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES 1962 IN THE LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES G IVEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO. LT D (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM)(SUPRA). 3 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS A LLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27.04.2012. SD/- SD/- , , , , MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# '# '# '# , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 27.04.2012. '4 / -5 6'5'7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.VRINDAVAN SERVICES PVT. LTD., 66/A, G.T.ROAD, L ILUAH, HOWRAH- 711204. 2 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT-I, KOLKATA, 4. THE CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .5 -/ TRUE COPY, '4%1/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)