Nissan Motor India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3028/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2673 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVASA RAO VARACITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAY
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3028/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S.NISSAN MOTOR INDIA PVT LTD ., ASV RAMAN TOWERS, 37 & 38,VENKATNARAYANA ROAD, THIYAGARYA NAGAR, CHENNAI. 600 017. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(2), 4 TH FLOOR,MAIN BUILDING, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN AACCN 0695 D ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.R.VIJAY,ADVOCATE !' /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SRINIVASA RAO VARA,CIT,D.R # $ %& / DATE OF HEARING : 31 - 1 0 - 201 8 '( %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 - 1 0 - 201 8 !' / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CO RPORATE CIRCLE 4(2) (AO) IN I.T.N.S -65 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.2017 I N PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ( DRP),BENGALURU UNDER ITA NO.3028/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 92CA(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 IN F.NO.373/DRP- 2/BANG/2016-17 DATED 25.09.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. MR.R.VIJAY REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR.SRINIVASA RAO VARA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN APPLICATION STATING AS FOLL OWS:- ITA NO.3028/CHNY./2017 THIS IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CAPTIONED APPEAL UN DER 253 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (DCIT), CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2) FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE H EARING IN RELATION TO THE SAID APPEAL HAS BEEN POSTED ON 31 OCTOBER 2018. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAD F ILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS ON 11 OCTOBER 2017, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT. THE PETITION WAS ADMITTED BY THE HONORABLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT VIDE INTERIM ORDER 13 OCTOBER 2017, AND THE FINAL HEARING WAS ON 28 SEPTEMBER, 2018. THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS SET ASIDE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE DCIT. THE HONORABLE HIGH CO URT HAS DIRECTED THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS FILED B Y THE APPELLANT AND PASS FRESH DIRECTIONS. THE EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF THE HONORAB LE HIGH COURT IS AS BELOW (IN W.P. 26815 OF 2017): 9. THEREFORE, THIS COURT IS FULLY CONVINCED THAT T HE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR CONSIDERATION O F THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER IN DETAIL AND TO PASS AFRE SH ORDER ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH REASONS AND INDEPENDENT FINDINGS. ONLY WHEN SUCH A SPEAKING ORDER IS PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE IN A POSI TION TO PASS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. SINCE THIS COURT IS SATISFIED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.268 15/201 7 IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 10. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE ALLO WED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE SET ASIDE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS RAI SED BY THE PETITIONER IN DETAIL AND PASS FRESH ORDER ON MERITS AND IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING INDEPENDENT REASONS AND FINDINGS. IT IS MADE CLEAR ONCE AGAIN THAT THIS COURT IS NOT EXPRESSING ANY VIEW ON THE M ERITS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE PETITIONER OR THE FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, AS IT IS FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO CONSI DER AND DECIDE. ITA NO.3028/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 1 . CONSIDERING THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3 OCTOBER 2017 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE, THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BECO MES INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE, THE APPELLANT REQUESTS YOUR HONORS TO TAKE THE SAME INT O CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, DISPOSE THE CASE. YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR NISSAN MOTOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R THAT CONSEQUENTL Y THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL. 3. LD. D R HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . AFTER HEARING BOTH PARTIES , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO BE WITHDRAWN . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # !$ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) % !$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ) $ / CHENNAI * / DATED: 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM + !%,- . -% / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. # /% () / CIT(A) 5. -23 !%4 / DR 2. !' / RESPONDENT 4. # /% / CIT 6. 35 6$ / GF