D.C.I.T. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BSI CAPITAL & FINANCE LTD., MUMBAI

During hearing of these appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the assessee is trading in shares/commodities and also in mutual funds, earned dividend income of Rs.3,75,338/- and assessee itself disallowed 10% of the dividend income. Our attention was invited to paper book page 17 by claiming that out of the total interest of Rs.1,25,95,277/-, the interest with respect to last four entities are NBFC including last one broker, thus, no dividend income arose from Rs.43,75,415/- and for the 3 BSI Capital & Finance Ltd. & 2479/Mum/2012 remaining four items (Rs.82,19,862/-), interest income is Rs.27,20,439/- is out of fixed deposits on which netting off interest should have been given. On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order to the extent which was denied to the assessee and for the remaining (which was granted to the assessee), the ld. DR challenged the same on the reasoning contained in the ground raised by the Revenue.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that the assessee filed a paper book running into 32 pages from which documents from serial number 5 to 8 were neither filed before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), even the copy of computation of income was also not filed before the ld. First Appellate Authority. As per the ld. representative from both sides, all these documents go to the roots of the matter. We further note that the ledger of India Infoline Margin funding, ledger of Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd., Ledger of Kotak Securities Ltd., ledger of J. M. Finance Ltd. (margin funding) and copy of computation of income was not produced before the authorities below, therefore, keeping in view, the principle of natural justice, and further no grievance is caused to 4 BSI Capital & Finance Ltd. & 2479/Mum/2012 either side. Even otherwise, the mandate of the constitution is to levy and collect due taxes and the documents which were relied upon by the assessee before us go to the root of the matter. The assessee is at liberty to furnish evidence in support of its claim along with case laws before the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard. As agreed from both sides, we remand these appeals to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and decide in accordance with law, thus, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.