Toyota Tsusho India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 350/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5602 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C H SUNDAR RAO I BENGALURU
• Assessee Lawyers: DARPAN KRIPLANI S
• Section: 153A; 147; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A NO .1201/BANG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.33 & 34, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 562 109. PAN: AADCS 6230N APP ELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A NOS.350/BANG/2015 & CO NO.41/BANG/2017 [IN IT(TP)A NO.1201/BANG/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 M/S. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.33 & 34, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 562 109. PAN: AADCS 6230N VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT / CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : S/SHRI VED JAIN & DARPAN KRIPLANI, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO, CIT(DR)(ITAT) - I, BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 11 . 0 1.201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 1 . 01 .201 8 IT(TP)A NOS.350 & 1201/B/2015 & CO NO.41/B/2017 PAGE 2 OF 5 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE RELATING TO AY 2010-11. IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE AS IT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, WHEREAS THE APPE AL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUEN T TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TPO HAS PASSED AN ORDER ON 3 1.01.2014 AND CONSEQUENT THERETO DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D ON 18.03.2014 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AND THE DRP HAS PASSED DIRECTIONS VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2014. CONSEQUENTLY, FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30.01.2015. THEREAF TER, THE ASSESSEE MOVED DRP FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE DIRECTIONS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTIONS WERE RECTIFIED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.20 15. CONSEQUENT TO THE RECTIFIED DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, THE AO PASSED FINA L ORDER ON 20.03.2017, BUT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 31.08.2 015 AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDE R THE LAW. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(1)(D), AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SUB- IT(TP)A NOS.350 & 1201/B/2015 & CO NO.41/B/2017 PAGE 3 OF 5 SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 OR SECTION 153A OR SECTI ON 153C PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP OR AN ORDER P ASSED UNDER SECTION 154 IN RESPECT OF SUCH ORDER; MEANING THEREBY, ONLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP IS AP PEALABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP AND NOT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQU ENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND DESE RVES TO BE DISMISSED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE, THE ASS ESSEES APPEAL AND ITS CO BECOME ACADEMIC AS IT HAS ALREADY GOT RELIEF UND ER RECTIFICATION. 3. THE LD. DR FORMALLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE DRP HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 154 ON 30.03.2015. CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASS ED ON 20.03.2017. BUT THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON 31.08.2015 BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP IS PA SSED. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(1)(D), AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 OR SECTION 153A OR SECTI ON 153C PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP OR AN ORDER P ASSED UNDER SECTION 154 IN RESPECT OF SUCH ORDER, IS APPEALABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT THE IT(TP)A NOS.350 & 1201/B/2015 & CO NO.41/B/2017 PAGE 4 OF 5 DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS , WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT IS N OT FILED AGAINST AN APPEALABLE ORDER. WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEG ORICALLY STATED THAT ITS APPEAL AND CO HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AFTER THE DI SMISSAL OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AS IT HAS ALREADY GOT RELIEF IN RE CTIFICATION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AND CO OF THE ASSESSEE AS BEING INFRUCTUOUS AND ACA DEMIC. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / IT(TP)A NOS.350 & 1201/B/2015 & CO NO.41/B/2017 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.