, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ,, , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 230/MDS/2016 [IN I.T.A. NO. 727/MDS/2016 ] / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD., MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX, NO.4, LADY DESIKA ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN: AAGCS4497N V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (1), CHENNAI. ( APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 30.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.12.2016 / // / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 29.07.2016. 2 M.A. NO. 230/MDS/2016 2. SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE COMPU TATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961, (IN SHORT THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. WH AT WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL IS, COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UND ER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REMANDED BACK THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UND ER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. TO THAT EXTENT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAD SPECI FICALLY RAISED THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AS GROUND NO.2.2. TH EREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT RAISED ANY SUCH ISSUE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS 3 M.A. NO. 230/MDS/2016 DELETED BY CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAD RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND IN GROUND NO.2.2 BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS THAT ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS DELETED BY CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, IT WAS FA CTUALLY NOT CORRECT. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, THE REVENUE HAD RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND AS GROUND NO.2 .2 WITH REGARD TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME HENCE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OFF THE GROUND WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY THE REVENUE. MOREOVER, COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF T HE ACT WAS DEPENDING UPON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. 4 M.A. NO. 230/MDS/2016 5. HENCE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016. JR. !' /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. #$% ( ) /CIT(A) 4. #$% /CIT, 5. /DR 6. &' /GF.