Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2066/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57965 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OMKARESHWAR CHIDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAGHUNATHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 2066/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LTD. (EARLIER M/S. COVANSYS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED), UNIT 13, BLOCK 2, SDF BUILDINGS, MADRAS EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, TAMBARAM, CHENNAI-600 045. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(3), CHENNAI. (PAN: AAACC1351M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RAGHUNATHAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDRA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 5-02-2012 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP), CHE NNAI IN F. NO. DRP/CHENNAI/SECTT./022/2010-11 DATED 27-09-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I.T.A. NO. 2066/MDS/2010 2 2. SHRI P. RAGHUNATHAN, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDRA, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT ONE OF THE MAIN GROUNDS RAISED IS THAT THE LEARNED DRP DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNE D DRP IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARAS 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1., 5.2 AND 7.1 OR THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED DRP. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NOWHERE THE LEARNED DRP HAS DIS CUSSED ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR HAVE THEY GIVE N ANY FINDING AS TO WHY THEY ARE REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE DRP FOR RE-CONSIDERATION. 3. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO P ARAS 4.2 AND 5.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP WHEREIN THE DRP HAS FOLLOW ED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES WER E THERE, THE DRP HAS ONLY APPLIED THE SAME FINDINGS. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISS ION THAT THE DETAILED FINDINGS ARE THERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED D RP AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. I.T.A. NO. 2066/MDS/2010 3 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP IN PARA 2.3 SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED DRP DID NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN FINALLY SETTLED. A PERUSAL OF P ARA 3.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP TALKS OF THE ACTUAL FACTUAL EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVES. WHAT ARE THE FACTUAL D ETAILS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ARE NOT COMING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED DRP. FURTHER IN REGARD TO THE NON-FOLLLOWING OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ALSO CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR UPHOLDING AN ADDITION UNLESS IT CAN CLEARLY BE SHOW N THAT THE DECISION DOES NOT APPLY. IN PARA 4.2 AND 5.2 THE LEARNED DRP HAS FOL LOWED THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. OB VIOUSLY, THE DRP IS NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEY ARE COMPET ENT TO LOOK INTO THE FINDINGS AND DECIDE WHETHER THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE CORRECT OR NEED TO BE MODIFIED. A PERUSAL OF PARA 7.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE DRP SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED DRP HAS ONLY APPROVED THE TPOS ORDER AS AL SO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. NO ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE THE LE ARNED DRP HAS BEEN DONE. CLEARLY, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP IS NOT A SPEA KING ORDER. REPEATEDLY COURTS HAVE BEEN HOLDING THAT IT IS INCUMBENT ON AN AUTHOR ITY PASSING AN ORDER TO CONSIDER ALL THE FACTS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUES BEFORE IT. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP SHOWS THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. IN I.T.A. NO. 2066/MDS/2010 4 THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSU ES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED DRP FOR RE-ADJU DICATION AND FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND WE DO SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15/02/2 012. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE