M/s. Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

MA 203/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Wockhardt Limited, which filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 203/PUN/2022) against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the Assessment Year 2010-11. The application contested the Tribunal's previous decision which dismissed Ground No.13 of the Cross objection and addressed the disallowance of a weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the logbook notes from the original hearing, confirming that Ground No.13 was indeed not pressed during the hearing. Regarding the weighted deduction, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been restored to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, following precedents and directions in earlier cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138158 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ITA Nos. 4866 & 5378/MUM/2013, ITA No.1967/MUM/2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „C‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 203/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.438/PUN/2023 & CO No.16/PUN/2019) (A.Y. 2010-11) Wockhardt Limited, Wockhardt R &D Centre, D-4, MIDC Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Maharashtra PAN: AAACW 2472 M vs ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 06/10/2023 Date of pronouncement : 10/10/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Misc. Application preferred by the assessee emanates from the common order passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 438 & 453/PUN/2018 and CO No. 16/PUN/2019, dated 13/12/201 for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and have given considerable thought to the contents of the Misc. Application filed before us. 2.1 The first contention raised by the ld.AR is that as per page 57, para 47 of the impugned order, it has been held by the Tribunal that MA No.203/PUN/2022 Wockhardt Ltd. 2 „the ld. counsel for the assessee has not pressed Ground No.13 of the Cross objection. In view of the submissions of the ld. counsel, Ground No.13 is dismissed as not pressed’. To this observation, it was contended by the ld.AR that they have pressed ground No.13 at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. In this regard, we verified from our logbook noting, which we have noted during the time of hearing, wherein it is specifically written that assessee has not pressed Ground No.13 of the cross objection. In view thereof, ground No.13 had been dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal and this ground raised in this Misc. Application, is dismissed devoid of merit. 2.2 In the second limb of contention by the ld.AR in this Misc. Application pertains to the issue of disallowance of weighted deduction u/sec. 35(2AB) of the Act. The Tribunal in the impugned order has decided the issue from para 48 onwards, and at para 51, ld. counsel for the assessee had referred to the decision of the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA Nos.4866 & 5378/MUM/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09, dated 09/03/2020 wherein the Tribunal considering the decision for A.Y. 2006-07 had restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. Respectfully, following this referred judgment, on the same parity of reasoning, the Tribunal in the impugned order had restored the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for re-adjudication as per directions in the order dated 12/06/2019 in MA No.203/PUN/2022 Wockhardt Ltd. 3 ITA No.1967/MUM/2011 and accordingly the ground No.12 of the Revenue‟s appeal was adjudicated. When the issue has been restored to the file of the AO, it is left open for the parties to revisit the issue as per law submitting documentary evidences etc. before the AO. That, following the rule of consistency, the Tribunal in the impugned order while following the referred judgment had also restored the matter to the file of AO/TPO and therefore, there is no mistake apparent from record in the findings of the Tribunal. Thus, the Misc. Application on this limb also is dismissed as devoid of any merit. 3. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 10 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 10 th October, 2023 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, “C” Bench Pune. 6. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.