The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. Vodafone India Services Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

CO 59/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3906 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

C.O. NO.59/AHD/2017 (IN ITA NO.565/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MADHUMITA ROY JM] C.O. NO.59/AHD/2017 (IN ITA NO.565/AHD/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. . ...........CROSS OBJECTOR VS. VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., ............................RESPONDENT VODAFONE HOUSE,CORPORATE ROAD, PRAHLAD NAGAR, OFF. S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD 380 051. [PAN : AAACZ 1849 D] APPEARANCES BY NONE FOR THE CROSS OBJECTOR FERESHTE SETHNA & MRUNAL PAREKH FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 23.07.2018 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 24.07.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSING OF FICER CROSS OBJECTOR HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE AGAINST DRPS DIRECTIONS DA TED 30.12.2016 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 :- 1. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL B E PLEASED TO PERMIT TO ADMIT THE FOLLOWING GROUND. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DECISION OF THE DISPUTE R ESOLUTION PANEL THAT THE OPTION RIGHTS ARE CAPITAL ASSETS, TH E COMPENSATION RECEIVABLE ON THE TRANSFER OF SUCH OPTIONS TO THE A SSOCIATED ENTERPRISE IS ALSO TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME IN HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS TIME BARED BY 64 DAYS BUT THE CROSS OBJECTOR HAS MOVED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. C.O. NO.59/AHD/2017 (IN ITA NO.565/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE CROSS OBJECTOR BUT WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY C ONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF CROSS OBJECTION. SHE, HOWEVER, SUBMITS THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ONLY INFRUCTUOUS INASMUCH AS THE SAME OBJECTIONS, AS HAVE BEEN RAISE D BY WAY OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, WERE ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL AND THE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PRI NCIPLE BY THE TRIBUNAL. SHE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2018 AND THE MATTER IS NOW PENDING BEFO RE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SHE ALSO INFORMS US THAT THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT HAS ADMITTED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NOW THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT SEIZED OF THE MATTER AND THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY WAY OF THE CROSS OB JECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THIS CROSS OBJEC TION SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 5. WE SEE MERITS IN THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR ELABORATE ORDER DATED 23.01.2018, DISPOSING OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL THE ISSUES, INCLUDING THE ISSUE NOW SOUGHT TO BE REALISED BY WAY OF THE C ROSS OBJECTION, HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CASE AND THE STAND OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS BEEN UPHELD. IN ANY CASE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD OVER ELEVEN SESSIONS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PERSONALLY PRESENT DURING THE HEARING, AND YET THE FILING OF THIS CROSS OBJECTION WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE BENCHS NOTICE. THE CROSS OBJECTOR, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EVEN SERIOUS ABOUT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INDEED INFRUCTUOU S AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, WHILE WE COND ONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS CROSS OBJECTION, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 24 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- MADHUMITA ROY PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER) DATED: 24 TH JULY, 2018 PBN/* C.O. NO.59/AHD/2017 (IN ITA NO.565/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD