WABCO India Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

CO 14/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2069 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BALASUBRAMANIYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ', $ %& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2238/MDS/2015 & C.O. NO.14/MDS/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S WABCO INDIA LIMITED, PLANT NO.1, PLOT NO.3(SP), 3 RD MAIN ROAD, AMBATTUR INDL. ESTATE, CHENNAI - 600 058. PAN : AAFCA 6421 P (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. BALASUBRAMANIYAM, FCA 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 27.01.2016 34) / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, CHE NNAI, DATED 16.09.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORD ER. 2 I.T.A. NO.2238/MDS/15 C.O. NO.14/MDS/16 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEA L BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE AND TH E LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DEL AY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. WE HEARD SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI M. BALASUBRAMANIYAM, THE LD . REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY ISSUE AR ISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO REIMBURSEMENT EXPEN DITURE, WHICH WAS NOT EXCLUDED IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER, WHETHER IT SHOULD FORM PART OF TOTAL TURNOVER. THE CIT(APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V. SAKSOFT LT D. [313 ITR (AT) 353] FOUND THAT REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH DOE S NOT FORM PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER SHALL NOT FORM PART OF TOTA L TURNOVER ALSO. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. IS THAT AN APPEAL W AS FILED BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF SPECIAL B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SAKSOFT LIMITED (SUPRA). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEF ORE MADRAS HIGH COURT CANNOT BE A GROUND TO TAKE A DIFFERENT V IEW BY THIS 3 I.T.A. NO.2238/MDS/15 C.O. NO.14/MDS/16 TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT T HE MADRAS HIGH COURT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE S PECIAL BENCH IN SAKSOFT LIMITED. FURTHERMORE, THE DENOMINATOR AND THE NUMERATOR SHOULD BE OF THE SAME FIGURE. WHEN THE NUMERATOR D OES NOT FORM PART OF THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE, THE SAME CAN NOT FORM PART OF DENOMINATOR ALSO. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTION ONLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). HENCE, THE CROSS-OB JECTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO.2238/MDS/15 C.O. NO.14/MDS/16 / -278 98)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A)-11, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, CHENNAI 5. 8; -2 /DR 6. <( = /GF.