Suretex Prophylactics (India) Limited, Bangalore V. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

MA 140/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5180 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 140/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 430/Bang/2016) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 74-91, KIADB Industrial Estate, Jigani II Phase, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore – 560 105. PAN: AACCS9648F Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (1)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 21-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by assessee against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 01.04.2021 in IT(TP)A No. 430/Bang/2016. 2. The present miscellaneous petition isfiled by the assessee seeking clarification/modification on the finding given by the Tribunal in para 12 at page 15 of its order dated 01/4/2021. The assessee herein came in appeal before the Tribunal on Transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee had also raised a legal issue on validity of the draft assessment order passed by the Ld.AO to be bad in law as the demand notice was issued along with it. This Tribunal following various precedents allowed the legal issue raised by assessee and held as under: Page 2 of 3 M.P. No. 140/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 430/Bang/2016) “12............................ As the assessment order dated 25/2/2015 has been quashed and set aside, all other issues raised on merits become academic.” 3. The contention of Ld.AR is that the assessing officer misunderstood the order of the Tribunal dated 01.4.2021 and that the Ld.AO was of the opinion that the disputed issue was remitted back to do fresh assessment. The Ld.Sr.DR submitted that there is no mistake apparent from the record which requires any clarification on the issue raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 4. The word 'set aside' means that the assessment order has been quashed. Further, there is no direction by the Tribunal to do any fresh assessment on the same issue. When there is no direction to do the fresh assessment, the Ld.AO cannot read the order passed by this Tribunal so as to frame fresh assessment on the same issue. This view has been fortified by the order of the Hon’ble Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Jaya Publication reported in 123 ITD 53. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no need of any modification, however the view of this Tribunal in the order dated 1/04/2021 stands clarified. In the result this miscellaneous petition stands disposed off as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 17 th February, 2022. /MS / Page 3 of 3 M.P. No. 140/Bang/2021 (in IT(TP)A No. 430/Bang/2016) Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore