CABLE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

MA 274/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5233 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RALAL NEGI (JM) M.A. NO. 274/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1166 /MUM/ 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ) CABLE WIRELESS (INDIA) LIMITED INDIAN BRANCH 9 TH FLOOR TOW ER B GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY PARK MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 103. VS. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 2(1)(1) 1 ST FLOOR ROOM NO. 114 SCINDIA HOUSE N.M. MARG MUMBAI - 400 038. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDEN T ) PAN NO . AAACC6133F ASSESSEE BY SHRI VISHAL KALRA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI SENTHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 23 . 12 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4 . 1 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A M : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION SE EKING RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN INADVERTENT ERRORS OCCURRED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER S RELATING TO BOTH THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO EITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR TO DRP. ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED AR PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE ANY ONE OF THE AUTHORITY. 2 3 . WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED AR. WE NOTICED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUES IN PARAGRAPH 5 & 9 OF THE ORDER AND RESTORED THEM TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/DRP. AS STATED BY LEARNED AR THIS WOULD CREATE CONFUSION. 4 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MATTERS MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECTIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DELETING THE WORD DRP AND SYMBOL / , WHEREVER THEY OCCUR , IN PARAGRAPH 5 & 9 OF THE ORDER . 5. LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER , THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A ) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAID SUBMI SSION ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THAT THE WORD S SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) OCCURRING IN THE 12 TH LINE IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE ORDER BE DELETED . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED O N 4.1.2017 SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL M EMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 4 / 1 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY OR DER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS