Standard Chartered Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd. , CHENNAI V. DCIT International Taxation 2(2) , CHENNAI

ITA 1963/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1964 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2020
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Keywords: Onus to prove; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 195; 192

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI , . , & BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17) M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES PVT.LTD., [FORMERLY KNOWN AS SCOPE INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.] NO.1, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM. CHENNAI-600 006. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), 62, GREAMS ROAD, THOUSAND LIGHTS, CHENNAI6-600 006. PAN:AAECS9043E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. SRIRAM SESHADRI, C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MS. R.ANITHA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.12.2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16, CHENNAI, ALL DATED 28.09.2 016, IN TURN THE SAME WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 248 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE OR LESS RAISED COMMON G ROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL APPEALS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED IN ITA NO.1961/CHNY/2020 ARE REPRODUC ED AS UNDER:- 2 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING T HE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT QUALIFY THE CRITERIA UNDER SECTION 248 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING MENTIONED THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME PAYABLE AND THE CORRESPONDING TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE AS FURNISHED IN THE STATEMENT OR FACTS/GROUN DS OF APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT, ERRED IN MAKING COMPLETELY CONTRARY OBSERVATION THAT THE SAID DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECTING THE APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED THE APPLICABLE TAXES AND REM ITTED THE SAME TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE TAX REMITTANCE CHALLAN EVID ENCING THE QUANTUM OF TAXES PAID WHILE FILING THE APPEAL U NDER SECTION 248 OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE REJECTING THE A PPEAL. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO BEAR THE TAXES AND AS SUCH THE APPEAL WAS RIGHTLY FILED UNDE R SECTION 248 OF THE ACT. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE REMITTANCES I.E. REIMBURSEMENT OF COST RELATING TO IMMIGRATION, RELO CATION AND LANGUAGE TRAINING OR DEPUTED EMPLOYEES ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO WITHHOLD TAXES. 9. THE APPELLANT CAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND, MODIF Y, AMPLIFY OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ANY FURTHER GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA. THE ASSESS EE IS A 3 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 SUBSIDIARY OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, UNITED KINGD OM (SCB UK). SCB UK HAS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES AROUND THE WORLD (GROUP ENTITIES). THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING BACK END INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY / INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES TO SCB GROUP ENTITIES FOR WHICH SCB GROU P ENTITIES HAVE DEPUTED EMPLOYEES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ROLES AND R ESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPUTED EMPLOYEES WERE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SUCH EMPLOYEES REPORT TO THE ASSES SEE COMPANY DURING THEIR TENURE OF WORK IN INDIA. THE DEPUTED EMPLOYEES HAVE REQUESTED THAT A PORTION OF THEIR SALARY SHOULD B E PAID OUTSIDE INDIA IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRY TO MEET THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS IN THAT COUNTRY. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO OBLIGE TO THE LEGITIMATE REQUEST OF THE DEPUTED EMPLOYEES AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR REMITTANCE OF A PORTION OF THE SA LARY OUTSIDE INDIA. FOR THIS PURPOSE, SCB UK HAS A CONTRACT WITH VEN DORS FOR PROVIDING SUPPORT LIKE IMMIGRATION, RELOCATION A ND LANGUAGE TRAINING TO THE DEPUTED EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SINCE THE EMPLOYEES ARE WORKING FOR THE ASSESS EE, THE COSTS ARE REIMBURSED WITHOUT ANY MARK UP BY SCB UK. FURTHER, SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE ON COST TO COST REIMBURSEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.195(2) OF THE ACT SEEKIN G NIL RATE OF 4 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 DEDUCTION FOR THE ABOVE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS HELD THAT TAX SHOULD BE WITHHELD @ 15% IN RESPECT OF COSTS INCURRED BY SCB UK FOR IMMIGRATION, RELOCATION AND LANGUAGE TR AINING TO THE DEPUTED EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS REMITTED THE SALARY AND OTHER COSTS TO SCB UK AFTER WITHHOLDING TAX U/S.1 95 OF THE ACT ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF USD 132,416 AND THE SAID T AX COST WAS BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, AGGR IEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONTESTED THAT AS NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENS ES OF SCB UK. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 248 OF THE ACT, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE DETAILS FUR NISHED IN FORM 35, IT WAS CLEARLY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S.19 5 OF THE ACT, AS SUCH, NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE APPEAL U/S.248 OF THE ACT WITH NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING DETAILS OF INCOME PAYABLE AND AMOUNT OF TAX PAID TO TH E CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F URNISHED ANY 5 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 DETAILS OF AMOUNT PAYABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED ON SUCH AMOUNT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT QUALIFY THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 248 AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 252 DAYS FOR WHICH NECESSARY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALON G WITH AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY HAS BEEN FIL ED. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT HAS FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKES AND AWAITING THE ORDERS FROM THE LEARNED CIT(A). WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH CAUSED D ELAY OF 252 DAYS. THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL IS NEITHER INTENT IONAL NOR WILLFUL BUT FOR THE UNAVOIDABLE REASONS, THEREFORE, DELAY MAY B E CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE. 6 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPO SING CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE DO NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE REASONS, WHICH CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND HENCE, APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE PETIT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT COMES UNDER REASON ABLE CAUSE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY A ND HENCE, DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS CONDONED AND APPEALS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 8. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS S QUARELY COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO . 1106/MDS/2016 DATED 04.08.2017, WHERE UNDER IDENTIC AL SET OF FACTS, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF WIT HHOLDING OF TAX 7 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 U/S.195 ON REMITTANCES MADE TO SCB UK TOWARDS REIMB URSEMENT OF COST INCURRED ON EMPLOYEES DEPUTED BY SPEAKING O RDER. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THE FACTS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND T HEREFORE, THESE APPEALS MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT ON REMITTANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCES AT AMOUNT PAYABLE AND CONSEQUENT WITHHOLDING OF TAX DEDUCTED AND R EMITTANCE OF SAME TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOU NT IN ORDER TO FILE APPEAL U/S.248 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THERE IS NO REASON TO GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA 8 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 NO.1106/MDS/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2016, WHE RE BY REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 248 OF THE ACT AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/.S G.E. INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD. VS.CIT (2010 ) 327 ITR 356 (SC), HAS SET ASIDE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO DECIDE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 195 O F THE ACT TO THE SUMS REMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SCB UK QUA EACH OF THE SUMS REMITTED. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO.1106/MDS/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2017 ARE AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. SECTION 248, UNDER WHICH SECTION APPEAL STANDS PREF ERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), READS AS UNDER: APPEAL BY PERSON DENYING LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX I N CERTAIN CASES. 248. WHERE UNDER AN AGREEMENT OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT, THE TAX DEDUCTIBLE ON ANY INCOME, OTHER THAN INTEREST, UNDER SECTION 1 95 IS TO BE BORNE BY THE PERSON BY WHOM THE INCOME IS PAYABLE, AND SUCH PERS ON HAVING PAID SUCH TAX TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, CLAIMS THAT NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON SUCH INCOME, HE MAY APPE AL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOR A DECLARATION THAT NO TA X WAS DEDUCTIBLE ON SUCH INCOME. THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT, AS EXPLAINED, PAYS A PART OF THE SALARY TO THE EMPLOYEES OF ITS GROUP ENTITIES SECONDED TO IT IN INDIA, WHILE THE BALANCE PART, REPRESENTING THEIR SOCIAL BENEFITS, HEALTH INSURANC E, ETC., IS PAID TO OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY BY THE REGUL AR EMPLOYER ABROAD. THE ASSESSEE, BY REIMBURSING THE PART SALARY PAID OUTSI DE INDIA, THUS BEARS THE ENTIRE SALARY COST OF THE SAID EMPLOYEES, AND BEING ONLY IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED IN INDIA, CLAIMS TO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT S OURCE ON THE ENTIRE SALARY U/S. 192 OF THE ACT. IT ACCORDINGLY CLAIMS THAT THE RE IS NO OBLIGATION ON ITS PART TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 195 OF THE ACT TH EREON, AND WHICH IT THOUGH HAS, BY GROSSING UP THE AMOUNT PAID, PAYING THE SAM E TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IS, HAS HOWEVER, REMITTED THE SALARY AS WELL AS THE OTHER COSTS, BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT, TO THE GROUP ENTITIES BY GROSSING UP THE TAX, AND PAYING THE SAME U/S. 195, AND FOR WHICH IT THEREFORE SEEKS DIRECTION FOR REFUND. 9 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 THERE CAN CLEARLY BE NO DOUBLE TAXATION, AS WO ULD BE THE CASE IN RESPECT OF SALARY TO SECONDED EMPLOYEES WHERE, AS CONTENDED , TAX STANDS ALREADY PAID ON THEIR ENTIRE SALARY, I.E., INCLUDING THAT DIRECT LY REMITTED ABROAD. THERE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON S UMS REIMBURSED. NO PART OF THE SUMS REIMBURSED SHOULD, HOWEVER, BE LIABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 195, AS WHERE IT CONSTITUTES THE INCOME OF THE ULTIMATE PAYEE, TAXABLE IN INDIA, INASMUCH AS TAX CANNOT BE AVOIDED MERELY BEC AUSE THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY ANOTHER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND WHO IS THEREFORE REIMBURSED THE COST. FURTHER, WHERE SUMS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCTI ON OF TAX AT SOURCE ARE REMITTED BY INCURRING TAX COST, BY GROSSING UP THE SUMS REMITTED FOR TAX, THE TAX SO DEDUCTED AND PAID IS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE IN-AS-MUCH AS NO TAX COULD BE EXACTED, SAVE THAT LEVIED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF LAW (ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA). SECTION 248 ACCO RDINGLY PROVIDES FOR A RECOURSE, WHERE ANY PERSON HAS PAID TAX U/S. 195 ON ANY INCOME, OTHER THAN INTEREST, TO, UPON ESTABLISHING THAT NO TAX WAS REQ UIRED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S. 195 IN THE FIRST PLACE, SEEK A DECLARATION TO THAT EFFE CT AND, THUS, REFUND OF THE TAX PAID, BEING OBLIGED TO DO SO UNDER THE ARRANGEMENT. THE SAME, AS IT APPEARS TO US, IS AN ALTERNATE TO S. 195 R/W S. 197 OF THE ACT, THOUGH CAN BE AVAILED OF ONLY AFTER THE DEPOSIT OF THE TAX UNDER REFERENCE T O THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. NOTHING, THEREFORE, TURNS ON THE REFERE NCE TO S. 197 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. DR DURING HEARING; THE ASSESSEE HAVING INVOKED S. 248, AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING IN FACT ADJUDICATED THEREON. WE MAY H ERE ALSO CLARIFY THAT HIS ORDER, DISPOSING THE SAID APPEAL, BECOMES AN ORDER U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT, APPEALABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL U/S. 253 OF THE ACT. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE MATTER IS TO BE R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR AN ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. TH IS IS AS HE HAS, WITHOUT DOING SO, ONLY STATED THAT NO ISSUE ARISES FOR ADJU DICATION AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE. HIS STATING THAT THER E IS NO ASSESSMENT ORDER IS MISCONCEIVED, AS THE SAME IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF S . 248. AS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY US PER PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER, THERE IS A DEFINITE CASE OF GRIEVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE SUMS REMITTED, BY PAYING TAX THEREON U/S. 195, DO NOT, AS CLAIMED, REPRESENT INCOME IN THE HANDS OF T HE PAYEES, OR THAT WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA, OR TAX IN RESPECT OF WHICH ST ANDS ALREADY PAID BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE PAYEES, SO THAT NO TAX WAS IN FACT DE DUCTIBLE U/S. 195. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). SECTION 248 PROVIDES THE MECHANISM FOR RECOVERY OF THE TAX PAID U/S. 195 ON OTHER THAN INTEREST PAID. THE ONUS TO PROVE ITS CLAIMS TH OUGH WOULD BE ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE QUA EACH OF T HE SUMS REMITTED PER A SPEAKING ORDER, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE ASSESSEE, NEEDLESS TO ADD, SHALL RENDER ALL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION IN THE MATTER IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 10 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 11. IN THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THAT OF FACTS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE TRI BUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO . 1106/MDS/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2017, WE SET ASIDE THE APP EAL TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO RECONSIDER TH E ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1961 & 1962/CHNY/2017 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.1962 & 1963/CHNY/2017: 13. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST DISMISSAL OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT(A) ORDER REJECTING APPEAL FILED UN DER SECTION 248 OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE SUBSTANTIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) T O RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRI BUNAL FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTING RECTIFIC ATION APPLICATION 11 ITA NO.1961 TO 1964/CHNY/2017 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND HE NCE, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 14. IN THE RESULT, ITA NOS. 1961 & 1962/CHNY/2017 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AN D SUBSEQUENT REMAINING TWO APPEALS I.E ITA NOS.1963 & 1964/CHNY /2017 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DECEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. M ANJUNATHA ) / VICE-PRESIDENT $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 2 ND DECEMBER, 2020 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .