AB Mauri India Private Limited, BENGALURU V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 126/CHNY/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1791 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िविवध यािचका सं / M.A. Nos.126 & 127/CHNY/2023 (arising in I.T.(TP)A. Nos. 85 & 86/CHNY/2018) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 AB Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.218 and 219, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. PAN: AAECA 9923H v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथᱮ / Applicant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से /Applicant by : Shri S P Chidambaram, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/ Date of hearing : 05.04.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05 .06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: By way of these Miscellaneous Applications the assessee has requested for rectification of mistake apparent from record in the order of Tribunal dated 23.11.2022 in IT(TP)A Nos. 85 & 86/CHNY/2018. 2 M.A Nos.126 & 127/CHNY/2023 2. The ld.counsel for the assessee Shri S.P. Chidambaram drew our attention to miscellaneous application filed by assessee in these assessment years stating that the Tribunal has recorded a finding, which under mistaken notion, that the assessee has not produced original agreement to prove the genuineness of agreement. The ld.counsel stated that the issue of genuineness of management services rendered by assessee based on agreement, copy of which was submitted before lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal during the course of hearing in its paper-book dated 07.05.2019. The ld.counsel stated that the agreement is a valid agreement between the providing party and the appellant and the genuineness of the same has never been questioned during any of the past assessment years because is continuing agreement from assessment year 2006-07 as the agreement was entered on 06.03.2006. Hence, the Tribunal has passed its decision on a mistaken notion and hence, committed mistake apparent from record. He stated that the assessee now established that the agreement is a genuine agreement and can also produce original of the same at the time of hearing in case, order is recalled. He also stated that the Tribunal never asked for original agreement at the time of hearing and just confirmed the disallowance of management service fee. 3 M.A Nos.126 & 127/CHNY/2023 2.1 He also stated that the Tribunal on another point that mail communication does not establish services provided by the AE to its assessee whereas mail was admitted by the party who received the mail and the Tribunal inadvertently missed out to complete mail communication at pages 1 to 103 of assessee’s paper-book. The Tribunal also noted wrongly that the mail given to one Mr. Geoff is a courier service agent whereas actually the designation of Mr.Geoff Black is Vice President – Operations of AB Mauri, South & West Asia. Hence, according to ld.counsel, the Tribunal has committed mistake apparent from record while adjudicating the issue and hence, he asked the Bench to recall the issue of management fee services and re-adjudicate the same after rectifying the mistake. 3. On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed the miscellaneous applications but could not controvert the above fact situation. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Tribunal has given its fining only on the basis of copy of agreement entered between assessee and its AE for payment of management service fee and it was not noticed that this agreement is entered on 06.03.2006 and is 4 M.A Nos.126 & 127/CHNY/2023 being acted upon by assessee from assessment year 2006-07. In term of the above, we find that the Tribunal committed a mistake apparent from record and hence, we recall the issue in these two assessment years and refix the same. 5. As regards to another issue of e-mail, the Tribunal has committed error in considering Mr. Geoff as a courier agent whereas he is Vice President – Operations of AB Mauri, South & West Asia and hence, it has to be reconsidered. In view of the above, we recall the issue in these two assessment years in regard to Management Service payments. Accordingly, both the Miscellaneous Application’s are allowed. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5 th June, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 5 th June, 2024 RSR 5 M.A Nos.126 & 127/CHNY/2023 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Applicant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.