DCIT- (LTU)-1, MUMBAI V. SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

MA 208/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9452 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37; 40(a)(ia); 208

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA.Nos. 208 & 209/MUM/2021 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.No. 3244 & 3245/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15)] ACIT – 3(4) Room No. 609, 6th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 v. M/s. Sonata Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., 208, T.V. Industrial Estate S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400025 PAN: AAECS8734J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Department by : Shri Pramod Nikalje Date of Hearing : 26.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. Through these Miscellaneous Applications revenue requested for recall the impugned order restore the appeal on the issue at ground No. 4 filed by the revenue challenging the decision of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 02.02.2018. MA.Nos. 208 & 209/MUM/2021 M/s. Sonata Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., 2 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that the department has raised grounds of appeal against deletion of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) by the Ld.CIT(A) and department also raised another alternative Ground 4(b) with the plea “clause without prejudice to the above ground of No. 4(a)”. However, ITAT has not been discussed on its merits and without rendering any decision on the alternative plea made by the revenue. Ld. DR prayed that the above ground maybe recalled and restored. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR brought to our notice Page No. 19 of the ITAT order wherein the Bench has discussed the issue elaborately and further he brought to our notice Para No. 16 of the order wherein the Coordinate Bench has discussed alternative plea of the department though not directly but bench has addressed the alternative plea of the revenue. 4. In the rejoinder Ld. DR submitted that bench has not clearly discussed on section 37 of the Act and alternate plea of the revenue. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After careful reading of Para No. 16 of the order and the alternative plea raised by the revenue, we observed that the bench has discussed the MA.Nos. 208 & 209/MUM/2021 M/s. Sonata Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., 3 same issue in Para No. 16 and the bench has addressed both the pleas raised by the revenue in Ground No. 4(a) and 4(b) and it is not necessary that the specific ground has to be addressed. It is enough to address the relevant issue, the bench has addressed both issues raised in 4(a) and 4(b) together. In this case the issue raised in Ground No. 4(b) is already discussed in the above said para, therefore, we do not see any reason to entertain the plea of the revenue. 6. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on 06.01.2022 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 06.01.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum