TATA TELESERVICES (MAH) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

MA 213/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 32; 40(a)(ia); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM M. A. N o. 2 1 3/ M u m/2 0 2 1 (A r is in g o u t of I T A No . 38 74 /M u m/ 2 0 19 ) ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 15- 1 6 ) Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited D-26, TTC Industrial Area MIDC, Sanpada, P.O. Trubhe Navi Mumbai-400 073 Vs . DCIT-8(3)(1) 6 th Floor, Room No.615 Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road-400 020 PA N / GI R N o . A A A C H 14 5 8 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hiten Chande Respondent by : Shri C. T.Mathew D at e o f H e a ri n g : 10.12.2021 Da t e o f P r o no un c e me nt : 07 .02.2022 Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: By way of this miscellaneous application, assessee seeks rectification of mistake in the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 3874/Mum/2019 for AY 2015-16 vide order dated 01.04.2021. 2. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We note that it is assessees plea that in the aforesaid order of ITAT ground No.1 raised by the revenue has not been adjudicated. 3. We note that the following grounds were raised before the ITAT as noted in the ITAT order itself. 2 M A N o s . 2 1 3 / M / 2 1 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 59,30,89,904/- under section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and holding that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 194H in respect of payment of the discounts allowed to its prepaid distributors on sale of starter kits and prepaid recharge vouchers." 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 99.50 crores u/s 32 of the IT Action respect of amount paid to DOT for purchase of 3G spectrum. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to -be set aside. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 5. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO restored. 4. A reading of the ITAT order shows that ITAT has only adjudicated the ground No.2; and the ground No.1 has not been adjudicated. Ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above. 5. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that a mistake apparent form record has crept into the ITAT order inasmuch as ground No.1 duly raised before it has not been adjudicated. Accordingly, the aforesaid order of the ITAT is recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground No.1, which has remained un-adjudicated. 6. In the result, the assessees miscellaneous application stands allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 .02.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (Shamim Yahya) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated :07 .02.2022 3 M A N o s . 2 1 3 / M / 2 1 Thirumalesh, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai