SHRI UNNI KRISHNAN VADAKKEDATH SUGATHAN, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

MA 30/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9886 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

MA No. 30/Mum/2021 ITA No. 1201/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2014-15 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'I' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] MA No. 30/Mum/2021 ITA No. 1201/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2014-15 Unnikrishnan V S ............................Applicant C/o G P Kapadia & Co 61 A, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAPPU3300G] Vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation 4(3)(1), Mumbai ........................Respondent Appearances by Kirit Mehta for the applicant Samuel Pitta for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 29/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 21/10/2022 OR D ER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this application, the assessee applicant points out certain mistakes in our order dated 13 th January 2021. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that while the Tribunal, in the impugned order, has proceeded on the basis that “We will take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 first, and whatever we decide in the said appeal, as learned representatives agree, will apply mutatis mutandis 2014-15 as well”, this position is factually incorrect inasmuch as there are material differences in the assessment years 2013-14 vis-à-vis 2014-15 which will have an outcome on bearing of the appeal. He then points out the points of distinction in these facts, and prays that the order for the assessment year 2014-15 may MA No. 30/Mum/2021 ITA No. 1201/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2014-15 Page 2 of 2 kindly be recalled for independent adjudication on merits. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relies upon the stand of the Tribunal but graciously leaves the matter to us. 3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 4. When the appeals for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 were taken up for hearing together, and if the basic plea of the assessee, with respect to the non-taxability of the ESOP, was to be upheld, the appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 would not have required independent adjudication. That is the backdrop in which the stand of the assessee was noted. However, as this basic plea for the assessment year 2013-14 was eventually rejected, an independent adjudication on 2014-15, except to the extent the issue is covered by the order for the assessment year 2013-14, is indeed required. All contentions are open in the terms indicated above. In view of this position, we hereby recall the order for the assessment year 2014-15 for fresh adjudication on the points and in the light of the observations above. Ordered, accordingly. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 21 st day of October, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- Sandeep S Karhail Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 21 st day of October, 2022 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order etc. True Copy Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai