M/S. ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU V. .DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

SA 75/BANG/2024

AI Insights

M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. filed a stay petition against an outstanding demand of Rs. 72,22,209/- arising from an assessment order that significantly increased their assessed income due to adjustments in international transactions. The assessee contested the arithmetic accuracy of the computation sheet and the timeliness of the assessment order, citing it was passed beyond the permissible period. The Departmental Representative argued for a 20% payment of the demand for a stay. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, particularly regarding the timing of the assessment order and the arithmetic error, leading to the partial stay of the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34987 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Hon'ble Madras High Court decision on limitation
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIDHYA K.
• Assessee Lawyers: TATA KRISHNA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"SP No.75/Bang/2024 M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SP No.75/Bang/2024 (Arising out of IT(TP)A No.2362/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. First Floor, Prestige Trade Tower Municipal No.46, Palace Road Bangalore North Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AABCA1860A Vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Tata Krishna, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Vidhya K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The present stay petition is filed by M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (“the assessee”) in ITA No.2362/Bang/2024 filed on 6.4.2024 seeking a direction to the ld. AO to keep the outstanding demand of Rs.72,22,209/- in abeyance till the disposal of appeal. 2. The stay petition is arising because of the fact that the assessment order was passed on 25.10.2024 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, wherein the return filed by the assessee on 15.3.2022 at a total income of Rs.50,24,118/- was assessed at Rs.71,32,73,744/- because of determination of Arm’s length price in international transactions on upward adjustment. The order is SP No.75/Bang/2024 M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 4 accompanied with the demand of notice u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) showing outstanding demand of Rs.78,22,210/-. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that ld. AO had assessed at income of Rs.71,32,73,744/- as per the assessment order dated 25.10.2024. However, in the computation sheet, the business income or assessed income is taken at Rs.78,82,74,241/-. Therefore, there is an error in the computation sheet of approximately Rs.50 lakhs, so the demand arising thereon is because of arithmetical inaccuracy. He Produced the computation sheet. 4. The second ground he raised is on the issue of limitation stating that assessment order is passed on 25.10.2024, whereas the limitation to pass the assessment order ended on 31.12.2023. He relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the order is time barred and therefore, no demand is payable. According to him, being a decision of the Hon’ble High Court in favour of the assessee, arithmetical inaccuracy in the computation sheet and the assessment order the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the assessee and no demand is payable. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee must be directed to pay at least 20% of the demand and without which the stay could not be granted. 6. In reply, the ld. A.R. submitted that the appeal of the assessee could not be disposed immediately because of the reason that the ground of limitation is not being argued by the revenue and therefore, despite being a decision of Hon’ble High Court and in SP No.75/Bang/2024 M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 4 absence of any other contrary decision, the assessee should not be directed to pay even 20% of the demand. He submits that the ld. A.R. is ready to argue the appeal on the grounds of limitation at any time. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. AO. i. On verification of the computation sheet and the assessment order, there is an apparent discrepancy in the assessed income computed as per the assessment order and as per the computation sheet. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and if the discrepancy is correct, the revised computation sheet should be issued along with the order u/s 154 of the Act. ii. Even otherwise, the assessee has raised the issue of the assessment order being time barred in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee prima facie as per the dates recorded above. It is also a fact that wherever the assessee has taken ground of limitation relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court, revenue seeks adjournment. On enquiry, the ld. D.R. also reiterated the same. iii. Assessee is directed to deposit a sum of Rs 10 Lakhs within 30 days of receipt of this order. iv. In view of the above facts, we direct the AO to first pass a rectification order, thereafter keep the balance demand [after adjustment of Rs 10 lakhs /-] in abeyance of recovery for 180 days or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. v. The ld. A.R. is also directed to file paper books on the merits of the issue as soon as possible. The appeal of the assessee is fixed for hearing on 23.01.2025 first on SP No.75/Bang/2024 M/s. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 4 board. No Adjournments should be granted unless it is must. 8. In the result, stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th Dec, 2024 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 18th Dec, 2024. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "