, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! '#,% &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (( / M.P. NO.131/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.782/MDS/2016) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NO.46, 8 TH AVENUE, DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA, ANJUR VILLAGE, NATHAM SUB, MAHENDRA WORLD CITY, CHENGALPATTU 603 002. PAN : AAGCA 6963 P V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), CHENNAI . (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) ,-) 1 2 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI N.V. BALAJI, ADVOCATE ,.-/ 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. NATARAJA, JCIT 3 1 4% / DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2017 5'* 1 4% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 23.12.2016. 2. SHRI N.V. BALAJI, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SUBMITTED THAT IN I.T.A. NO.782/MDS/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12, 2 M.P. NO.131/MDS/17 THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING ITS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN RESPECT OF BRAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE, THE ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EVE N THOUGH IT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE BRAND REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITUR E CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCUSSION BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. NATARAJA, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF UPWARD ADJUSTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1.60 CRORES WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL. THE DRP BY FOLLOWING ITS ORDER FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010- 11, DIRECTED THE TPO TO WORK OUT THE UPWARD ADJUSTM ENT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL FINANCIALS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TAKEN FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THIS IS NOT AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MARKET DEVELOPMENT / BRAND PROMOTION EXPENSES ARE CONSIDER ED TO BE PART 3 M.P. NO.131/MDS/17 OF THE OPERATING EXPENSES WHILE MAKING UPWARD ADJUS TMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1.6 CRORES. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE ORDE R FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS REMITT ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AT ALL. AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE MATTER DO NOVO AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFOR E, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ERROR MU CH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 23.12.20 16. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 27 TH JULY, 2017. KRI. 4 M.P. NO.131/MDS/17 1 ,48( 9(*4 /COPY TO: 1. ,-) / PETITIONER 2. ,.-/ /RESPONDENT 3. 3 :4 () /CIT(A) 4. 3 :4 /CIT 5. (; ,4 /DR 6. ) < /GF.