M/s. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

MA 129/BANG/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2563 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ELAMURUGU G J
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 5 MP NO.129/BANG/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP NO.129/BANG/2020 (IN IT(TP)A 2687/BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PVT. LTD. UNIT 5, 3 RD FLOOR, EXPLORER BUILDING, INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK,WHITEFIELD, BENGALORE-560 066. PAN AAECA 2635 C VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : S MT TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR , ADVOCATE RE VENUE BY : SHRI ELAMURUGU.G , JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 12 - 202 0 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 0 6 - 202 1 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL PAGE 2 OF 5 MP NO.129/BANG/2020 THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED B Y ASSESSEE ALLEGING MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN ORDER PASSE D BY THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 13/05/2020. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THE COMPARABLE CG-VAK SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD. HAD DIS PUTED THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY. HOWEVER AT PAGE 19 THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT, FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED B Y BOTH SIDES. 2.1 THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AS ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DIS PUTING THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY OF THIS COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETI TION IS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED PAGE 1196 OF PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN IT WA S OBSERVED THAT REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS ARE MENTIONED ON STANDALONE BASIS, WHEREAS PAGE 1209 HAS ALSO BEEN C ONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL SHOWS A DIFFERENT REVENUE GENERATED BY THIS COMPARABLE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS AT PAGE 1 209 IS CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE FORMING PART OF T HE GROUP COMPANY AND THEREFORE THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. SH E SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNTED TO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 6. THE LD.COUNSEL THUS PRAYED FOR THIS COMPARABLE T O BE READJUDICATED. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD.AR IN THE LIGHT OF OUR NOTING IS RECORDED IN THE LOGBOOK. 8. INSOFAR AS THE 1 ST ISSUE ALLEGED BY THE LD.COUNSEL REGARDING CATEGORICAL OBSERVATION BY THIS TRIBUNAL REGARDING FUNCTIONAL PAGE 3 OF 5 MP NO.129/BANG/2020 SIMILARITY, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON THE R ECORD REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGED THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY OF T HIS COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 9. INSOFAR AS CONSIDERING PAGE 1209 OF PAPER BOOK, WE NOTE THAT THE LD.COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE 1209 WHILE PLACING HER ARGUMENTS AND THEREFORE CANNOT RAISE AN ISSUES THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON PAGE 1209 AMOUNTED TO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 10. IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS IN ALL THE TRANSFER PRICING CASES FILED BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL ASSESSEE FILES HUGE PAPER BOOKS RUNNING INTO VOLUME S AND THOUSANDS OF PAGES OUT OF WHICH ONLY A FEW PAGES AR E REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. IT BECOMES A CUMBERSOME JOB TO SUBSEQUENTLY ADHERE TO SUCH MISCE LLANEOUS PETITIONS WHEREIN INCORRECT PAGES ARE REFERRED AND RELIED ON BY REPRESENTATIVES, THEREBY CAUSING THERE WASTE OF TIM E. 11. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE MAY POINT OUT THAT SUCH KIN D OF APPROACH IN FILING VOLUMINOUS AND IS PAPER BOOK BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE AVOIDED IN ORDER TO AVOID SUCH KIND OF MISCELLAN EOUS PETITIONS ARISING IN ANY ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 12. HOWEVER BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, IN OUR VIEW THIS COMPARABLE NEEDS TO BE READJUDICATED IN L IGHT OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 13/05/2020 ON LY TO THE EXTENT OF CONSIDERING THE COMPARABLE CG-VAK TECHNOL OGIES LTD. PAGE 4 OF 5 MP NO.129/BANG/2020 IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY A SSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE, 2021. SD/- SD/- (B.R BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND JUNE, 2021. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE