CIT(TP), DELHI-2, NEW DELHI V. IDEMIA SYSCOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

MA 73/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the revenue against a Stay Application previously disposed of by the Tribunal. The revenue contested the Tribunal's decision which extended the time for the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to pass an order until March 31, 2025, instead of January 24, 2025, as per the usual deadline for the Assessing Officer (AO)/Jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal had initially allowed the TPO to continue proceedings but not to pass the order until the disposal of the main appeal. However, since the main appeal was decided in favor of the assessee, the revenue's application was deemed infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34888 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKKY JHAMTANI; THIS TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Application of stay
• Section: 92

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 73/Del/2024 (In SA No. 69/Del/2024) (ITA No. 647/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) CIT(TP), Delhi-2, New Delhi Vs. Idemia Syscom India Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. 1A, Sector-73, Noida, Basi Bahuddin Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCS2000C Assessee by : Ms. Nikky Jhamtani, CA Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/10/2024 Date of pronouncement 11/10/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This miscellaneous application is filed by the revenue against the Stay Application disposed off by this Tribunal in SA No. 69/Del/2024 in ITA No. 647/Del/2024 dated 21.02.2024. The grounds raised by the revenue in its miscellaneous application are reproduced below:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deciding the limitation date for TPO to pass the order u/s 92 CA (3) r.w.s. 263 as 31.03.2025 without appreciating the fact that the limitation date for AO/JAO to pass the draft assessment order in the case in 24.01.2025. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not allowing the TPO to pass the order till the disposal of appeal by the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 647/Del/2024 or till the appeal is not disposed on before 31.03.2025 when there is no MA No. 73/Del/2024 Idemia Syscom India Pvt. Ltd Page | 2 bar to pass the order on or before the limitation date which is in this case is 24.01.2025 for AO/JAO. 3. That the Hon'ble ITAT has erred on facts and in law in directing the TPO not to pass the order in consequent proceeding to order passed u/s 263 by the CIT(TP), though no such powers are available to the Hon'ble ITAT as per provisions of Income Tax Act. 4. That the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in ignoring the fact that powers of the stay are confined to stay of demand only in appeal filed before Tribunal w/w 253(1) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at any time or before the hearing the appeal.” 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 3. The ld DR submitted that this Tribunal while disposing off the Stay Application in SA No. 69/Del/2024 had stated that the ld TPO has got time to pass giving effect order to Section 263 order till 31.03.2025. In ground No. 1 of the revenue, it was mentioned that this date should have been 24.01.2025 and not 31.03.2025. We deem it fit to rectify the same and our finding in para 4(b) of the Stay application order dated 21.02.2024 is modified accordingly, date has to be reckoned as 24.01.2025 thereon. 4. The ld DR also vehemently submitted that this Tribunal in the stay application order had practically stayed the proceedings of the ld TPO by not allowing him to pass the giving effect order to Section 263 order. We have also submitted that the Tribunal has got no power to stay the proceedings u/s 254(2)(a) of the Act and has power only to stay the recovery of demand. He submitted that the order passed by a ld TPO would not give rise to any demand per se. Accordingly, the Tribunal ought not to have entertain the stay application preferred by the assessee originally. 5. Per contra, the ld AR submitted that an appeal preferred by the assessee against the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the MA No. 73/Del/2024 Idemia Syscom India Pvt. Ltd Page | 3 ld PCIT has already disposed off by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2024. Hence, the ld TPO could not proceed with the giving effect order itself in the instant. She pleaded that the entire grounds raised by the revenue in the miscellaneous application practically becomes academic and infructuous as the main appeal itself has already disposed off in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal. 6. We have gone through the stay application order dated 21.02.2024. We had specifically stated that the ld TPO could continue with the giving effect proceedings u/s 263 order but he shall not pass the order till the disposal of the main appeal as on that date sufficient time was available for the ld TPO to pass the giving effect order. Further, it has been specifically clarified in para 5 of the order that the Tribunal had only directed the ld TPO not to pass the order but to continue with the giving effect proceeding to section 263 of the Act. Now all the main appeal itself had already disposed off by this Tribunal vide order 28.03.2024 wherein, the invocation of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act was quashed by this Tribunal. The entire MA of the revenue has rightly pointed out by the ld AR becomes academic and no purpose would be served in the MA of the revenue. 7. In the result, the Ma of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/10/2024. -Sd/- -Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:11/10/2024 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant MA No. 73/Del/2024 Idemia Syscom India Pvt. Ltd Page | 4 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "