DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Webex Communications India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

MA 112/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3569 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR AJEET
• Assessee Lawyers: CHAVALLI NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS. 112 & 113/BANG/2019 (IN IT(TP)A NOS. 272/BANG/2014 & 782/BANG/2015 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7 (1) (2), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. WEBEX COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD., 2, NORTH PARK, KUMARA PARK EAST, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AABCC0256A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHAVALLI NARAYANAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI KUMAR AJEET, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 1 1 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 1 1 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO M.PS. ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THIS IS THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THESE M.PS. THAT AS PER THESE TWO TRIBUNAL ORDERS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP BUT AS PER RULE 28 OF ITAT RULES, 1963, IT IS PRESCRIBED THAT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED, IT MAY REMAND IT TO THE AUTHORITY AGAINST WHOSE ORDER THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED OR TO THE AO WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE TRIBUNAL MAY THINK FIT. THIS IS THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THESE M.PS. THAT AS PER RULE 28 OF ITAT RULES, 1963, THE TRIBUNAL CAN SET ASIDE THE MATTER ONLY TO THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 2. IN COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR OF REVENUE MADE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS HAS BEEN STATED IN THESE M.PS. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN M.P. NO. 52/BANG/2019 DATED 28.08.2019 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS M.P. M.P. NOS. 112 & 113/BANG/2019 (IN IT(TP)A NOS. 272/BANG/2014 & 782/BANG/2015) PAGE 2 OF 2 ALSO SAME CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER ITS OBSERVATIONS IN PARA NO. 6 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIRST OF ALL REPRODUCE PARA NO. 6 FROM THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN M.P. NO. 52/BANG/2019 DATED 28.08.2019. THE SAME IS AS UNDER. 6. FROM THE ABOVE RULE 28, IT COMES OUT THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE AUTHORITY FROM WHOSE ORDER THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALTHOUGH THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE AO BUT IT IS COMPULSORILY REQUIRED TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP AND THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE COMBINED READING OF RULE 28 OF ITAT RULES, 1963, SECTION 144C(13) AND SECTION 254(1) OF THE IT ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IF THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED BACK THE MATTER IN THE PRESENT CASE TO DRP AND NOT TO THE AO. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF DRP AND NOT TO THE AO. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE M.PS. FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.