M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITTPA 1169/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves IBM India Private Limited appealing against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The appeals were initially filed on a protective basis while similar appeals were pending before the ITAT. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals as infructuous, not considering the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders for the respective AYs, which were similar to those in previous orders. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not take cognizance of its earlier decisions and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for a decision in light of the ITAT's findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41129 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.2041/Bang/2016, ITA No.625/Bang/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY ROTTI
• Section: 143(3); 250; 144C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.1168 & 1169/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 IBM India Private Limited, No.12, Subramanya Arcade, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 029. PAN: AAACI 4403L Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ajay Rotti, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 O R D E R Per Bench Present appeals of the assessee are arising out of the order of the of the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru-12, dated 16.4.2024 having DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064144020(1) & ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1064144278(1) and relates to the AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that these appeals are filed on protective basis before the ld. CIT(A) when IT(TP)A Nos.1168 & 1169/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 5 the appeals for the same AYs were pending before the ITAT. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT has decided the appeals for the AY 2010-11 on 18.7.2022 in ITA No.2041/Bang/2016 and for AY 2012-13 vide ITA No.625/Bang/2017, order dated 14.02.2022. It is next contended that the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has withdrawn the impugned appeal is factually incorrect. At last, the ld. counsel for the assessee requested that the both the mattes may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for proper verification and adjudication in accordance with law. 3. The ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue has also accepted the prayer of the assessee that the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal for both the years. The grounds for AY 2010-11 are as follows:- “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits as under: 1. CIT(A) order bad in law 1.1. At the outset, M/s IBM India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant' or 'the Company') prays that the order dated April 16, 2024, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(A), Bengaluru-12 ('learned CIT'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. IT(TP)A Nos.1168 & 1169/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 5 2. Appeal being treated as infructuous 2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by not appreciating that the adjustments made by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated January 8, 2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 92CD of the Act ('92CD Order') are identical and similar to the adjustments made by the learned AO in the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act ['143(3) Order']. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts by not appreciating that the grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant in the appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the 92CD Order are identical and similar to the grounds preferred by the Appellant in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble ITAT against the 143(3) Order. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in disposing the appeal preferred before it against the 92CD Order concluding the same as infructuous instead of following the conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble ITAT in the appeal filed against the 143(3) Order. 3. Relief 3.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto. 3.2 The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 5. Ground No.1 is general in nature in both the appeals and hence dismissed as not pressed. 6. In ground Nos.2 & 3, the short issue in both the appeals is whether the observation of the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee has IT(TP)A Nos.1168 & 1169/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 5 withdrawn its appeals is factually correct or not. We observe that the assessee filed these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) on 9.2.2018 when the proceedings of the present cases were pending before the ITAT. The ITAT has decided the matters vide its order dated 18.7.2022. Therefore, in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) could have decided the matter in the light of the findings of the ITAT given in ITA Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 vide order dated 18.7.2022 for AY 2010-11 and in ITA No.625/Bang/2017, order dated 14.02.2022 for AY 2012-13. However, the ld. CIT(A) could not take cognizance of the orders of the ITAT. We are aware that in this case assessee has entered into APA and then revised its Return of Income also. Hence we are restoring the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into cognizance the orders of the ITAT and all other proceedings happened in these years. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) ( PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 24th January, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / IT(TP)A Nos.1168 & 1169/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 5 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "