CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,WHITEFIELD,BANGALORE,KARNATAKA V. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1) , BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

MA 16/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Caterpillar Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, seeking to recall an ITAT order on the grounds of apparent mistakes. The appellant argued that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) incorrectly assumed the integration of management support services with other international transactions, treating the assessee as the tested party, whereas it was benchmarked separately with the foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) as the tested party. The Tribunal initially set aside the issue for fresh adjudication without considering the appellant's submissions and the Transfer Pricing (TP) study. The appellant contended that the ITAT mistakenly categorized the management support services as shareholder services, which were actually received from the AE. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the recall, suggesting that the issues were set for fresh adjudication and that the appellant could present necessary documents before the TPO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652669 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAROOP MANNAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGESWAR RAO; WAYOFTHISMISCELLANEOUSAPPLICATIONISSEEKING
• Keywords: Set aside; Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.16/Bang/2025 [IT(TP)A No.1621/Bang/2024] Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s Caterpillar Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, Crescent 1, Prestige Shantiniketan, Whitefield, Hood B.O, Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN – AAHCC 7975 L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri Swaroop Mannava, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee by way of this miscellaneous application is seeking to recall of the order passed by the ITAT dated 4 February 2025 on the reasoning that there are certain mistakes apparent from record. 2. The assessee in the instant petition submitted that the TPO and the learned DRP has wrongly assumed that the benchmarking of the MA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 . international transaction being management support services has been made by integrating the same along with the other international transactions treating the assessee as the tested party. According to the assessee, the transaction being management support services was benchmarked separately and independently treating the foreign AE as the tested party. The assessee in support of its contention has drawn our attention on pages 209 and 1093, 1098 of the paper books, justifying that the impugned international transaction being management support services was benchmarked independently and separately treating the foreign AE as tested party. 3. Likewise, it was further submitted that the Tribunal without considering the TP study, other submissions made before the lower authorities has also assumed inadvertently that the assessee has integrated the international transaction of management support services along with the other international transaction while determining the ALP. Similarly, there was no finding qua the fact that the foreign AE was chosen by the assessee as tested party. As such, the Tribunal inadvertently has set aside the issue to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law without considering the crucial facts stated above. 4. Furthermore, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the impugned management support services represent shareholder services without considering the fact that such services were received from the AE and not from the shareholder company. Therefore, the ITAT wrongly concluded that such management support services represent the shareholder services. According to the assessee, all the details relating to MA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 . the receipt of the services were duly submitted before the authorities below which can be verified from pages 1113 and 1114 of the paper books. In addition to the above, the assessee also submitted that there were various details filed by the assessee justifying the management support services which was also acknowledged by the ITAT in its order which are available on pages 75 of the appeal set but there is no finding on the same. 5. The learned AR also submitted that there were numerous orders and the judgements of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court were cited at the time of hearing but the same have not been considered inadvertently by the ITAT in its order dated 4 February 2025. 5.1 In view of the above, the Ld. AR before us prayed to recall the order passed by the ITAT dated 4 February 2025 and restore to its original number for fresh hearing on account of apparent mistake within the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that there should not be any grievance to the assessee by the order of the ITAT as the issues raised by the assessee have only been set aside to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. Furthermore, the learned AR is at the liberty to file necessary documents during the proceedings before the TPO. Likewise, the learned DR submitted that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT and therefore the same should not be recalled. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section MA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 . 254(2) of the Act empowers the ITAT to rectify any type of mistake in its order provided it should be apparent from the record. The mistake apparent from the record has been the subject matter of continuous litigation. The Hon’ble Courts time and again has defined the apparent mistakes through judicial pronouncements under different facts and circumstances. As such, the apparent mistake refers to those errors or inconsistency that is evident from the face of the documents/order of the authority in respect of which two views are not possible. The apparent mistake can be in the form of calculation, data, wrong assumption of facts, misinterpretation of the provisions of law, misreporting of income, deduction, or any other relevant information. However, the mistakes which require arguments, debate, evaluation of law/facts in its determination, the same cannot be referred as mistake apparent from the record. Likewise, if any order given by the ITAT which is alleged to be based on the ground assumption of facts or law, but after due application of mind, then the same cannot be said a mistake apparent from the record. It is because the view has been formed by the ITAT after considering the necessary facts and the law on the point of dispute, then the same cannot be reviewed again in the garb of apparent mistake. In other words, the error of judgement cannot be described as a mistake apparent from record. In such a situation, the aggrieved party should approach the higher forum for the redressal of the issue involved in the dispute. 7.1 Coming to the facts of the present case, the precise question before us is whether a complete non-consideration of a crucial fact, which is admittedly on record, falls within the ambit of such a 'patent mistake'. In our view 'mistake' is meant not only an error in the legal MA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 . sense but also an omission. Failure to consider a material fact on record which goes to the very root of the matter, and which has been duly placed on record by a party, should be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. From the preceding discussion, we note that there were various details filed by the assessee during the course of hearing before the ITAT but the same has not been considered. The details related to the benchmarking of international transaction being management support services separately and independently have not been considered. As such the ITAT on wrong assumption of facts has held that the assessee has integrated the international transaction being management support services along with the other international transaction. Likewise, there is no finding about the selection of tested party which was also in dispute. Similarly, there were various details filed by the assessee regarding the allocation of management support services but the ITAT has wrongly assumed that such services were relating to the shareholders activity whereas the services were received by the assessee from the AE and not from the shareholder company. In our considered view, the facts which have not been considered by the ITAT while deciding the issue are crucial to the dispute on hand. Accordingly, we hold that there is a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act and therefore, we exercise our power granted under section 254(2) of the Act and recall the order for fresh hearing. The registry is directed to list the case for hearing dated 11 August 2025. As the date of hearing has been pronounced in the open court, there is no need to issue fresh notice intimating the date of hearing. Hence, the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is allowed. MA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 . 8. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in court on 16th day of June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 16th June, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "