TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI V. CIT 1, MUMBAI

ITA 3122/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5079 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJEET KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DINISH VYAS
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 147; 263; 11; 92C; 143(3); 92D; 92E

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEM BER ( . ) . / ITA (TP) NO. 3121/ MUM./ 2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 06 ) ( . ) . / ITA (TP) NO. 3122/ MUM./ 2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 07 ) TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM L TD.) M.G. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 .. / APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 1 ( 3 ), MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAACV2808C / ASSESSEE BY : MR. DINISH VYAS / REVENUE BY : MR. AJEET KUMAR JAIN / DATE OF HEARING 1 6 . 1 2 .2013 / DATE OF ORDER 20.12.2013 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL S HA VE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE IMPUGNED SEPARATE ORDER S DATED 28 TH DECEMBER 2013, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 2 WELL AS THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICERS ORDER (FOR SHORT TPO ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 06 AND 2006 07 RESPECTIVELY. 2 . BESIDES VARIOUS GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS , ONE LEGAL GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, UNDER THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, CANNOT SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT. 3 . SINCE THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE COMMON AND INTER RELATED, THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4 . FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A RE FERENCE UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO THE TPO FOR THE COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (FOR SHORT ALP ) IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, THE TPO PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) ON 23 RD JANUARY 2008, PROPOSI NG THE ADJUSTMENT OF ` 12,19,83,099 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 AND VIDE ORDER DATED 6 TH FEBRUARY 2008, PROPOSING ADJUSTMENT OF ` 9,18,20,608, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE TPO, COMPUTED T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ALP DETERMINED BY THE TPO. THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF TRANSFER PRICING ORDER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., 2007 08, THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23 RD FEBRUARY 2012 FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER SECTION 263 FOR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REFERRED AGAIN TO THE TPO TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND DETERMINING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AS DONE BY THE TPO IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007 08. 5 . IN RESPONSE, BESIDES OTHER OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92E WHEREIN IT HAS DISCLOSED ALL ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS A.E. , IN FORM 3CEB AND IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STU DY REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE SAID MATTER TO THE TPO FOR THE COMPUTATION OF ALP FOR ALL THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS . I N THE TRANSFER PRICING PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 3 THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EXPLANATION S AS WAS REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE TPO, AFTER EXAMINING THE ENTIRE DETAILS, TRANSACTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, PASSED A DETAIL ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) WHICH IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92CA(4) AND, THEREFORE, NEITHER SUCH AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 NOR CAN BE CANCELLED. 6 . THE COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT NO DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE GIVEN INSOFAR AS THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER PRICING AND ADJUSTME NT OF ARMS LENGTH VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ARE CONCERNED. SINCE THE TPO HAS MADE THE ADJUSTMENT IN CERTAIN FOREIGN TRANSACTIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 AND THE SAME TRANSACTIONS ARE ALSO THERE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 06 AND 2006 07, THEREFORE, ADJUSTMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 5. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO FOR A.Y. 2006 07 APPARENTLY FOUND T O BE ERRONEOUS AND APPEARS TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 DATED 22/10/2010 IS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN THE A.Y. 200 7 08 UNDER THE SIMILAR HEADS OF EXPENSES. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATE 28/12/2010 IS THEREFORE, IS SET ASIDE WITH DIRECTION TO REFER THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT OF ARM LENGTH VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TO THE TPO FOR RE CONSIDERATIO N AND TO APSS THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS FROM THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER . 7 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, MR. DINESH VYAS, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL, MUMBAI BENCHES, IN ESSAR STEELS LTD. V/S ACIT, [2013] 152 TTJ 265 (MUM.) HAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE TPO ADMINISTRATIVELY AND , THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER COULD NOT HAVE REVISED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) PASSED BY THE TPO. THUS, WHEN THE TPOS ORDER CANNOT BE REVISED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263, THEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANCELLING THE TPOS ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ESSAR STEELS LTD. (SUPRA). TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 4 8 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, MR. AJEET KUMAR JAIN, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO HIGHLIGHT HIS POINTS. THE SAID SUBMIS SIONS, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE BENCH IS 'WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT HAS THE POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEN THE ORDER IS PASSED IN CON FORMITY WITH THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE TPO AND THE ORDER OF THE TPO IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE? THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE CAN BE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 92C(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER SHALL BE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92C(3) OF THE ACT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE CIT IN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 HAS THE POWERS TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS ERRO NEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ERROR WHICH HAS CREPT UP IN THE DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE, CAN BE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CAN MAKE A REFERENCE U/S 92CA(1) TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. ON REFERENCE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE U/S 92CA(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92CA(3) IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE SO DETERMINED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. THE ORDER OF THE TPO IS THUS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE ARM 'S LENGTH PRICE. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE TPO GETS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE QUESTION IS THAT WHETHER FETTERS CAN BE PLACED ON THE REVISIONARY POWERS OF CIT TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FA R AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE? IN MY HUMBLE SUBMISSIONS, NO FETTERS CAN BE PLACE ON THE POWERS OF THE CIT. MY ARGUMENT WILL GET FORTIFIED WITH THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS: PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 263. (1) THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER TO (I) EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND (II) IF THE COMMISSIONER CONSIDERS THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER MAY REVISE THE ORDER. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 5 6 . THE TRANSFER PRICING PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO UNDER THE ACT AND THE COMMISSIONER IS EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF TRANSFER PRICING PROCEEDINGS. 7 . SECTION 263(1) REFERS TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PHRASE 'ASSESSING OFFICERS' IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(7 A) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER AN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PLACED BELOW SECTION 92CA(7) OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: EXPLANATION. - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'TRANSF ER PRICING OFFICER' MEANS A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AUTHORISED BY THE BOARD TO PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 92C AND 92D IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PER SONS. 8 . THUS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE EXPLANATION REPRODUCED ABOVE, THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IS AN ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 92C AND 920 OF THE ACT. 9 . THEREFORE THE COMMISSIONER IS FULLY EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANY P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND IF THE DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IS FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER CAN EXERCISE ITS REVISIONARY POWERS TO REVISE THE ORDER OF TH E TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WHO IS AN ASSESSING OFFICER BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 92CA(7) OF THE ACT. 10 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ALTERNATIVELY THE DEFINITION OF THE 'ASSESSING OFFICER' AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(7A) MAY KINDLY BE EXAMIN ED. THE SECTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: (7A) 'ASSESSING OFFICER' MEANS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OR THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WHO IS VESTED WITH THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OR JOINT COMMISSIONER OR JOINT DIRECTOR WHO IS DIRECTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB - SECTION (4) O F THAT SECTION TO EXERCISE OR PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THIS ACT; 11 . SECTION 2(7 A) OF THE ACT REFERS TO THOSE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF O RDERS ISSUED BY THE CBDT U/S 120(1) OR (2) OF THE ACT. NOTIFICATION NO. 231/2007 [SO 1446(E)] DATED 22.08.2007 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE SAME IS ISSUED BY THE CBDT UNDER SECTION 120(1) AND (2) OF THE ACT AND NOTIFIES THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRANSFER PRICIN G OFFICERS. 12 . THUS READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263(1) WITH SECTION 2(7A) AND NOTIFICATION NO. 231/2007 [SO 1446(E)] DATED 22.08.2007, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS THE POWERS TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, WHOSE DETERM INATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 6 13 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, MY HUMBLE REQUEST IS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS A GOOD ORDER AND MAY KINDLY BE UP HELD . 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL. IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIONER HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO IS ERRONEOU S INASMUCH AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO ERRONEOUS. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH DIRECTION TO REFER THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT OF ARMS LENG TH VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO THE TPO FOR RE CONSIDERATION AND THEN TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS AND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TPO. WE FIND THAT THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, IN ESSAR STEELS LTD. ( SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE TPO ADMINISTRATIVELY AND HE COULD NOT HAVE REVISED THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) PASSED BY THE TPO. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ESSAR STEELS LTD. (SUPRA) ARE AS UN DER: 13. WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THE ISSUE WHETHER THE TPOS ORDER COULD BE REVISED BY THE CIT OR BY THE DIRECTOR OF IT AS THAT ISSUE IS NOT BEFORE US AT THIS MOMENT. AS SEEN FROM THE PROVISIONS, THE CIT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE TPO ADMINISTRATIVELY AND THEREFORE, THE CIT COULD NOT HAVE REVISED THE ORDER U/S 92CA(3) PASSED BY THE TPO. WHETHER THE DIRECTOR OF IT CAN REVISE THE ORDER WHICH HE HIMSELF HAS APPROVED AS PER THE BOARD CIRCULAR CAN ONLY BE EXAMINED WHEN SUCH ISSUE ARISES BUT FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE, WE CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 1 ST JAN., 2008 PASSED U/S 143(3) IS NOT ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS IT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE TPO U/S 92CA(4). 18. BEFORE PA RTING, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE NO CLARITY ABOUT. THE AUTHORITY WHO HAS TO MODIFY THE TPO'S ORDER IN CASE, ANY ORDER OF TPO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. CIT CANNOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER TPO AS TPO FUNCTIONS SEPARA TELY UNDER THE DIRECTOR OF IT (TP). IN OUR VIEW THE DIRECTOR OF IT SHOULD HAVE INITIATED THE P ROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 263 ON THE ORDER OF THE TPO INSTEAD OF SENDING PROPOSAL TO THE CIT FOR REVISING THE ORDER OF THE TPO. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIT, HOWEVER, WR ONGLY INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U / S. 143(3) WHICH WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TPO'S ORDER UNDER S. 92CA(3). AS THERE IS NO REVISED TPO ORDER IN THIS CASE, THE ORDER OF CIT HOLDING THE ORDER OF AO UNDER S. 143(3), DT. 1 ST JAN., 2008 A S ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE UPHELD . TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 7 10 . WITHOUT GOING INTO FURTHER ANALYSIS ON THIS ISSUE, WE, AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE, FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE AND HOLD THAT THE COMMIS SIONER CANNOT EXERCISE THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 ON THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) BY THE TPO. ONCE THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION, THEN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SET ASIDE AS THE ORDER OF THE TPO UNDER SECTION 92CA(4) IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE HEREBY CANCELLED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. THUS, THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS A LLOWED. 11 . IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. 12 . 2005 06 2006 07 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 06 AND 2006 07 ARE ALLOWED. 20 TH DECEMBER 2013 ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER 2013 SD / - . . P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD / - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 20 TH DECEMBER 2013 TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARD ED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE ; ( 2 ) / THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRU E COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI