M/s.Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

MA 252/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5962 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 252/BANG/2017 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 755 /BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 1 3 M/S. BIESSE MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD., SY. NO. 32, # 469, JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, SONDEKAPPA ROAD, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 123. PAN: AACCB7928D VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1) (2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TATA KRISHNA ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 . 1 1 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .1 2 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MP IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE SAME, I T HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBU NAL ORDER. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT AS PER PARA NO. 9 OF THE MP, THE FIRST MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AND AS PER THE SAME, CERTAIN GROUNDS I.E. 4.2.2 TO 4.2.4, 4.3. 1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 TO 6.4 AND GROUND NO. 8 WERE NOT DECIDED IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBU NAL ORDER. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE BENCH POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL WAS HEARD ON THE BASIS OF CHART AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT FROM THE CHART T HAT WHETHER THESE GROUNDS WERE ARGUED OR NOT. THE BENCH TOOK OUT THE CHART FILED ON THE DATE OF HEARING M.P. NO. 252/BANG/2017 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 755/BANG/2017) PAGE 2 OF 3 OF APPEAL I.E. 21.06.2017 AND POINTED OUT THAT AS P ER THE CHART, ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED IN RESPECT OF EXCLUSION OF FOLLOWING COMPARA BLES. A) LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. B) MINDTREE LTD. C) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. D) DATAMATICS GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. E) SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ALONG WITH THE CHAR T, THERE IS A STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF CAPACITY UN DERUTILIZATION- MANUFACTURING SEGMENT AND THERE IS NO OTHER ARGUMEN T OR CONTENTION RAISED AS PER THE CHART. THE BENCH POINTED OUT THAT AS PER T HE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ISSUE REGARDING ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS CAPACITY UTI LIZATION WHILE DETERMINING ALP HAS BEEN DECIDED AS PER PARA NO. 15 OF THE TRIB UNAL ORDER AND AS PER THE SAME, THIS ISSUE WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF A O / TPO AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11, PARA 10.4.8 IN ITA NO. 97/BANG/2015 DATED 06.11.2015 AND THEREFORE THE RE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON THIS ASPECT. IN REPLY, LE ARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY OTHER ARGUM ENT IS MADE IN THE CHART. 4. REGARDING THE ISSUE INVOLVED AS PER GROUND NOS. 4.2.3 AND 4.2.4 IN RESPECT OF ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS RENT AND ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS DEPR ECATION AND PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ADVANCES, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IN THE CHAR T AND SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF GRANTING ADJUSTMENT IN RESP ECT OF EMPLOYEES COST ALSO, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT RAISED IN THE CHART AND THEREF ORE, THESE GROUNDS WERE NOT ARGUED AT ALL AND HENCE, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTA KE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON THIS ASPECT. SIMILARLY REGARDING GROUND NOS. 5.1 A ND 5.2 ALSO, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IN THE CHART AND THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS WERE ALSO NOT ARGUED AND HENCE, ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. IN THE OTHER GROUNDS ALSO AS NOTED ABOVE AND IN RESPECT OF GRANTING ADJUSTMENT IN WORKING CAPITAL ALSO, NO ARGUMENT WAS RAISED AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO M.P. NO. 252/BANG/2017 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 755/BANG/2017) PAGE 3 OF 3 APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER ON ANY OF THE ASPECTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MP. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH DECEMBER, 2017. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.