Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I-2/FRIDAY” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.207/Del/2018 [In ITA No.5191/Del/2011] [Assessment Year : 2007-08] DCIT, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. vs Noida Customer Operation Pvt.Ltd., Now merged with WNS Global Services Pvt.Ltd., Plant No.10, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Complex Highway, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079. PAN-AAACW2598L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri N.K.Bansal, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Date of Hearing 23.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 05.09.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) has been filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.5191/Del/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that there is a mistake apparent from the record. He contended that the Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2017, allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5191/del/2011 [Assessment year 2007-08]. The Tribunal erred in following the decision Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal without expressly recording the facts as to whether factum of amalgamation was intimated by the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the present M.A deserves to be dismissed being gross misuse of process of law. He contended that the fact of amalgamation was duly intimated to the lower Page | 2 authorities. It is not the case where no intimation was given to the assessee. Therefore, reliance placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. Civil Appeal No.2716 of 2021 is misplaced. 4. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on records. It is stated by the Revenue that as per the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 11.08.2009, the amalgamation took place w.e.f. 01.04.2007. The assessee itself filed its return of income on 15.11.2007 as independent entity. Therefore, no fault can be found in the assessment order. The question is whether the assessee had intimated to the AO regarding amalgamation before concluding assessment proceedings. It is recorded by Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.1198/Bang/2010 for AY 2006-07 that the assessee intimated vide letter dated 24.08.2009. The Revenue could not rebut the factum of intimation given to the concerned authority regarding amalgamation. The impugned assessment order was passed subsequently on 28.09.2011. 5. We therefore, are not inclined to recall order dated 22.09.2017 in the light of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 416 ITR 613 (SC). The M.A. filed by the Revenue is hereby, dismissed. 6. In the result, the M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05 th September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Page | 3 * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
Mehul