DCIT(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

MA 150/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4524 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Tax effect; Time period of passing order; TDS
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.150/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.563/Mum/2019 (Asse ssment Year :2009-10) DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Room No.715, 7 th Floor Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 002 Vs. M/s. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., 14 th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Park Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AABCT3784C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Milind S. Chavan Assessee by Shri Hiten Chande Date of Hearing 28/01/2022 Date of Pronouncement 04/05 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): By virtue of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal on 21/08/2019 dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect by following CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019. The Revenue in its Miscellaneous Application had stated that the tax effect in the instant case is more than Rs.50,00,000/- and hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be recalled. MA No. 150/Mum/2020 M/s. Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2 2. Per contra, the ld. AR stated that the tax effect involved in this case is only Rs.21,90,265/- and not Rs.60,84,070/- as stated by the ld. DR. He stated that the said demand had arose in connection with order passed u/s.201(1) of the Act dated 10/02/2011. 3. We have gone through the assessment order passed u/s.201(1) of the Act dated 10/02/2011 wherein demand of Rs.60,84,070/- was indeed raised by the ld. AO on account of short deduction of tax at source in respect of director sitting fees, outsourcing expenses and network charges. However, the ld. AR also objected to the fact that this Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by the Revenue beyond a period of six months from the date of the Tribunal order. However, we find that though the Tribunal order is passed on 21/08/2019, the same was received by the Revenue on 11/11/2019 and hence, the Miscellaneous Application preferred by the Revenue before us on 09/02/2020 is well within the prescribed time, if time limit is reckoned from the date of receipt of tribunal order. We find that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Techknowledgy Interactive Partners P Ltd vs ITO reported in 130 taxmann.com 194 (Mumb Trib) had held that for working out the limitation period u/s 254(2) of the Act, the same is to be reckoned only from the date of service of order and not from the date of order. Hence, this argument of the ld. AR is dismissed. 3.1. Apart from that, the ld. AR also argued that this Tribunal does not have power to recall its own order passed u/s.254(1) of the Act. We are not inclined to agree to this argument of the ld. AR as admittedly, the Tribunal had erroneously considered the tax effect figure at Rs.21,90,265/- as against Rs.60,84,070/-. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground of low tax MA No. 150/Mum/2020 M/s. Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 3 effect. This constitutes mistake apparent on record warranting rectification within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, we are inclined to recall the order passed by this Tribunal and allow the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue. The Registry is directed to fix the main appeal for hearing on 16/06/2022. 4. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on 04/05 /2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 04/ 05 /2022 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy//