DCIT, BANGALORE V. SWISS RE SHARED SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

MA 3/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the revenue seeking to rectify what it claimed was an apparent mistake in the ITAT's earlier order regarding the date of a transfer pricing order under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. The revenue contended that the ITAT had incorrectly stated the date as 31 January 2014, whereas it was actually 30 January 2014. The assessee's counsel argued that the ITAT had already considered this issue in their previous order. The ITAT concluded that the revenue's application amounted to a review of the earlier decision, which is not allowed under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32841 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARITHIVEL V
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGESHWAR RAO
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 292BB; 254(2); 92CA

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No. 3/Bang/2025 [In IT(TP)A No. 290/Bang/2025] Assessment Years: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru. Vs. Swiss Re-Global Business Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vaswani Centropolis, 2nd to 6th Floor, No.21, Langford Road, Langford Town, Bangalore. PAN – AAECS 8786 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Parithivel V, JCIT Date of hearing : 28.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .03.2025 O R D E R PER WASEE M AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The revenue, by way of this miscellaneous application, is seeking to rectify the apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT dated 30 December 2021, within the meaning of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 1. In the miscellaneous application, the revenue submitted that the ITAT had passed an order holding that the order under section 92CA of MP No.03/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . the Act was passed beyond the due date, i.e., 31 January 2014, whereas the actual date of passing the order under section 92CA of the Act was 30 January 2014. According to the revenue, this fact was wrongly considered by the ITAT in its order. In view of the above, the learned DR before us prayed for rectification of the apparent mistake stated in the miscellaneous application to provide justice to the revenue. 2. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the issue whether the transfer pricing order under section 92CA of the Act was passed on 30 January 2014 or 31 January 2014 has been duly dealt with by the ITAT in its order dated 30 December 2021. Accordingly, there is no apparent mistake in the ITAT's order, as alleged by the revenue. According to the learned AR, the ITAT passed the order after due application of mind and considering the necessary facts available on record. At this juncture, no new facts can be brought on record. The learned AR vehemently supported the order of the ITAT. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 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 of continuous litigation. The Hon’ble Courts time and again has defined the apparent mistakes through judicial pronouncements. 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, MP No.03/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 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, in the event of any order given by the ITAT which is alleged to be based on the wrong 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. 4. However, in the present facts of the case, upon perusal of the ITAT's order, we note that the ITAT after considering the necessary facts concluded that the order by the TPO was passed on 31 January 2014, which is barred by limitation. The relevant extract of the ITAT order dated 30-12-2021 reads as under: “In the present facts, the Ld.CIT.DR has in the written submission mentioned that the order of the Ld.TPO is passed on 29.01.2014 or 30.01.2014 but dated 31.01.2014. Then, the order of the Ld.TPO is not only irregular, wrong or illegal but is also null and void. Such action cannot be considered to be of any irregularity in the procedure, so as to get any kind of protection u/s. 292BB of the Act. In view of above and following judicial precedent cited before us by the ld AR being decision of the coordinate bench we hold that the order of the id TPO passed on 31.01.2014 is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Therefore, consequently, the proposed addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to does not survive.” MP No.03/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the revenue in the miscellaneous application, if entertained at this stage, will amount to a review of the order of the ITAT passed on an earlier occasion, which is not permissible under the provisions of the law. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue. Thus, we dismiss the same. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in court on 17th day of March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 17th March, 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 "