Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3328 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
16-02-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
AllowedAllowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
16-02-2023
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
28-10-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMASHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.102 & 103/PUN/2022 Arising out of ITA.No.101/PUN./2012 & ITA.No.298/PUN./2013 Assessment Years2007-2008 & 2008-2009 The ACIT, Circle-9, Pune. vs. M/s. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase-III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, Pune – 410 501. PAN AABCM1789L (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani For Assessee : Shri Pramod Achuthan Date of Hearing : 17.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These Revenue’s twin miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.102&103/PUN./2022 filed in assessee’s corresponding appealsITA.No.101/PUN./2012 & ITA.No.298/PUN./2013 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09; respectively, filed u/s.254(2) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") seek to recall/rectify our common order dated 30.04.2019 by raising the following identical pleadings : 2 MA.Nos.102 & 103/PUN./2022 for finally benchmarking. selected comparable 3 MA.Nos.102 & 103/PUN./2022 2. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands against and in support of the Revenue’s foregoing pleadings. Suffice to say, we are of the opinion that there is hardly much a need for us to delve deeper in the factual matrix at length once it has come on record that our order had accepted the assessee’s “aggregation” plea which had been turned down in the learned lower authorities respective orders. We quote Rule 10A(d) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 that such an aggregation of transactions is indeed permissible if it satisfies all the settled parameters of law. And the same is no more res integra as well once our order in issue has already issued necessary directions to the Assessing Officer/TPO. 2.1. That being the case, we now advert to the Revenue’s main contention seeking to pinpoint certain alleged apparent mistakes in our above common order that the learned lower authorities may be given liberty to examine and conduct a fresh search(es) in the relevant data base regarding the comparable entities issue. We are of the view that the Revenue’s instant plea prima facie deserves to be accepted in principle since our order had accepted the assessee’s aggregation plea and 4 MA.Nos.102 & 103/PUN./2022 restored the issue back to the lower authorities. The fact also remains that Learned counsel representing the assessee has placed on record the TPO’s separate consequential orders for both these assessment years that he has already conducted the corresponding factual verification regarding comparability of all the companies in the relevant segment. We thus conclude in view of these facts and circumstances that the Revenue’s instant twin miscellaneous applications deserve to be accepted only in principle subject to the condition that nothing shall come in the TPO’s way to finalise his consequential factual verification as per law. Ordered accordingly. 3. These Revenue’s twin miscellaneous applications are allowed for statistical purposes in above orders. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMASHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 17 th February, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. Ld. DRP, Pune. 4. Ld. CIT-5, Pune 5. DR ITAT Pune-B Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //BY Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
AI Insights
The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) and Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. concerning appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Revenue filed twin miscellaneous applications seeking recall/rectification of a previous order that accepted the assessee's aggregation plea, which was contrary to the decisions of the lower authorities. The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the Revenue's request for a fresh examination of comparable entities used in benchmarking for transfer pricing. The tribunal concluded that the Revenue's applications deserved to be accepted in principle, allowing for a fresh examination by the lower authorities while ensuring that the TPO could finalize his verification without obstruction.
