Siemens Limited (Successor in interest to Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Limited), Mumbai V. The ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda

MA 32/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5974 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing

Judgement Text

MA NO.32/AHD/2015 IN ITA NOS. 2881/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] M.A. NO.32/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO. 2881/AHD/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SIEMENS LIMITED ............APPLICANT (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED) 130, PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400018 [PAN : AAACB 8542 M] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .......................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-4, BARODA APPEARANCES BY: ARIJIT CHAKRAVARTY FOR THE APPLICANT SUMIT KUMAR VERMA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 01.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 01.12.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. THIS RECTIFICATION PETITION SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE, SAID TO BE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECT ION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IN OUR ORDER DATED 19 TH SEPTEMBER 2014. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, IT WAS, INTER ALIA, POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 WAS TO BE ALLOWED, ALL OTHER TRANSFER PRICING RELATED GRIEVANCES (I.E. GRO UND NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7) WILL BE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ACADEMIC. IT WAS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 WAS ARGUED AT THAT TIME PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF ASSURANCE OF THE BENCH THAT IN CASE GROUND NO.4 IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED, THE APPEA L WILL BE REFIXED FOR HEARING ON OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL ALL OWED THE GROUND NO.4 ONLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES BY REMITTING THE MATTER BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO, AND DISMISSED GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7 FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THIS OBSERVATION IS I NCORRECT AND IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE DID WANT TO GIVE UP THESE GRIEVANCES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS GRIEVANCE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PL ACED ON RECORD AFFIDAVIT OF MS. KARISHMA PHATARPHEKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL WHO HAD ARGU ED THE APPEAL. OUR ATTENTION IS THEN INVITED TO THE CHART FILED DURING THE ORIGI NAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE POINT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. MA NO.32/AHD/2015 IN ITA NOS. 2881/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT UPON THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN GROUNDS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7, ARE THUS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED ANYWAY. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY R ELIES UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE, MUCH LESS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, IN THE ORDER. HE, HOWEVER, WAS GRACIOUS EN OUGH TO SUBMIT THAT IT IS A CALL TO BE TAKEN BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER THESE GRIEVANCE S, WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN UP BY THE BENCH IN APPELLATE HEARING ORIGINALLY CAN BE TA KEN UP NOW, AND, HE LEAVES IT TO BE DECIDED BY THE BENCH ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RE CORD. 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, AND HAVING C AREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD PARTICULARLY THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE COUNSEL AND THE CHART SUMMING UP GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE, WE AGREE THAT GROUNDS N OS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED ADJUDICATION ONLY IF GROUND NO.4 WAS TO BE ALLOWED. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IN ALL FAIRNESS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS TO BE RECALLED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF DECIDING OTHER TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS, I.E. GROUN D NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7, ON MERITS AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE ORDER SO. 6. ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 IS THUS RECALLED FOR THE STRICTLY LIMITED PURPOSES AS SET OUT ABOVE AND TO DISPOSE OF GROUNDS NOS. 1,2,3,5, 6 & 7 ON MERITS. S 7. IN THE RESULT, RECTIFICATION PETITION IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 1ST DAY O F DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 1 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDE NT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ......4 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ATTACHED.01.12.2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 01.12.2017........ 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 01.12.2017... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.12.2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : ... 01.12.2017... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: