PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

MA 105/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1753 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 105/Del/2020 (in ITA No. 9003/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., vs. Dy. CIT, CC-7, 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector-62, New Delhi. Near Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon. PAN: AAACP1272G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : ShriAnmolAnand, Ld. Adv. Revenue by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 03.06.2022 Date of order : 03.06.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. The instant miscellaneous application has been preferred by the Assessee for rectification of the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 9003/Del/2019, with the following prayers : (a). Rectify the typographical errors in impugned order dated 10.01.2020 passed in ITA No. 9003/Del/2019 for AY 2015-16 in light of the mistakes pointed out in the present application. (b). Pass such other orders that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. Page 2 of 4 2. Heard the parties and perused the order passed by the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench. The Assessee has sought rectification of typographical error in para No. 8, wherein ITA No. has been recorded as 1834/Chand/2010 instead of correct no. i.e. 1334/Chandi/2010. Further, the Assessee also sought rectification of the last line of para No. 8, wherein the Hon’ble Court has written that AMP adjustment made by the TPO/Assessing Officer could be sustained, whereas in fact the sentence is required to be written as “AMP adjustment made by the ld. TPO/Assessing Officer could not be sustained”, because the Hon’ble Tribunal has categorically given a finding in para No. 10 of its order referred above to the effect “that for the year 2014-15 also on the same reasoning and following the view taken by the Tribunal for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 the issue was held in favour of the Assessee.” ShriAnmolAnand, Ld. Adv., further emphasised that even otherwise, the Hon’ble Tribunal vide Para No. 14its order, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions, while observing as under: “In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to sustain the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer. We therefore, set aside the findings of the ld. DRP and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions.” 3. Learned DR fairly accepted the factual position recorded above. Page 3 of 4 4. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated above, we deem it appropriate to rectify the order passed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate bench, to the extent that para No. 8 of the order dated 10.01.2020 is to be read as under: “On a reading of the order dated 19.11.2018 in ITA No. 1334/Chandi/2010 and batch or the assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 reported in (2018) 100 taxman.com 159(Delhi) we find that the issue of AMP is dealt with by the Tribunal in extensor and a conclusion was reached to the effect that the AMP adjustment made by the Ld. TPO/learned Assessing Officer could not besustained.” 5. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/06/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ‘aks’