ASIAN PAINTS LTD, V. DCIT (LTU),

MA 158/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3884 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, ' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- I,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SHAKTIJIT DEY,JUDICIAL MEMBER MA.S./158-61/MUM/2015(ARISING OUT OF ITA.S./1122,23 ,25&27/MUM/2011)-AY.S.1999-00 TO 2002-03 ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED. ASIAN PAINTS HOUSE,6 A SHANTINAGAR SANTACRUZ(E),MUMBAI-400055. PAN: AAACA3622K VS DCIT LTU WORLD TRADE CENTER, CUFF PARADE,MUMBAI-5 ( / ASSESSEE) ( / RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL / REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV KASHYAP / DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 01-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-01-2016 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. : VIDE ITS APPLICATIONS,DATED 15.07.2015,THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY HAS STATED THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 20 .02.2015,THAT SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2)OF THE ACT,THAT IN THE PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF THE FOR THE AY. THE ISSUE OF PHTHALIC REVAMPING EXPENDITURE HAD BEE N RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA),THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORD ER FOR THE AY.1999-00 TO AY.2001-02 THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND NOT TO THE FILE OF THE FAA,THAT IN PARAGRAPH 7 TO10 THE GROUND RELATING TO SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE FOR 2000-01 AND 2001-02 HAD BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT,THAT THE IDENTICAL GROUND FO R THE AY.2002-03 HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED AS GROUND RELATING TO PHTHALIC REVAMPING EXPENDITURE AND HAD BEEN SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO,THAT FOR THE AY.2002-03 THE ASSE SSEE HAD RAISED GROUND WITH REGARD TO SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE,THAT ISSUE ABOUT SOFTWARE EXPE NDITURE HAD TO BE DECIDED FOLLOWING THE EARLIER YEARS ORDERS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE (AR)MADE THE SAME ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLIC ATIONS.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION S ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT,THAT THERE IS TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ORDER F OR THE AY.1999-00TO2001-02. THEREFORE, WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR ALL THE AY.S.AND IN PLACE OF THE FILE OF THE AO IT SHOULD BE READ AS THE FILE OF THE FAA .WE ALSO FIND THAT WHILE FILING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ISSUE OF SOFTWAR E EXPENDITURE,THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE AO. CONSIDERING THESE PECULIAR FACTS WE DIRECT THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER DATED 20. 02. 2015 SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER: EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT SOFTWARE EXPEN DITURE.FOLLOWING OUR ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS,WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE AO. RESULTANTLY, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.S.1999-00 TO 2001-02 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2002-03 IS ALLOWE D. MA-158-161/M/15-ASIAN PAINTS 2 AS A RESULT,MA.S. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY,2016. 6 ,2016 SD/- SD/- ( / SHAKTIJIT DEY) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, /DATE: 06.01.2016 . . . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.