M/S TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S CANVASM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ), MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 361/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in December 2022. The original appeal by the Revenue for AY 2009-10 concerned two issues that were restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination. The assessee argued that these issues were identical to those in AY 2008-09, where a co-ordinate bench had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, and thus, the Tribunal should have followed that decision under the principle of consistency. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had changed the 'Most Appropriate method' without proper confrontation and that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's contentions without verifying relevant facts. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, stating that reviewing its own order under the guise of rectification was not allowed under section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136550 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “K” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) M.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 in I.T.A. No. 3980/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited (Successor to M/s. Canvasm Technologies Limited) Gateway Building Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400 001. PAN : AACCC86665N Vs. DCIT 2(3)(1) Room No. 552 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Viral Shah Department by Shri H.M. Bhatt Date of Hearing 04.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Application submitting that there is mistake apparent from record in the order dated 27.12.2022 passed in ITA No. 3980/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee has filed this miscellaneous petition against the order passed on the appeal of the Revenue on two issues. In this year, the Tribunal has restored both the issues to the file of the learned CIT(A) for examining them afresh. It is the submission of the assessee that identical issues were examined by Coordinate Bench in the appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2008-09 and the co-ordinate bench has dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It is submitted that the Tribunal should have followed the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2008-09 by following the Rule of consistency and M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited (Successor to M/s. Canvasm Technologies Limited) 2 should have dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It is submitted that a mistake apparent from record has occurred in not following the order passed by the co-ordinate bench for AY 2008-09. 3. We noticed from paragraph 7 of the order passed for AY 2009-10 that the Tribunal has noted down the contentions of the Ld A.R that the issues contested in AY 2009-10 is covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2008-09 in the assessee’s own case. However, in paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal has appreciated the fact that the learned CIT(A) has changed ‘Most Appropriate method’ without confronting the same with the Assessing Officer/TPO. With regard to the second issue, the Tribunal has noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has accepted the contentions of the assessee without verifying relevant facts. Under these set of facts, the Tribunal has restored all the issues to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide both the issues afresh after obtaining remand report from AO/TPO. Thus, we noticed that the Tribunal has taken a conscious view of the matters by appreciating the new facts put before the Tribunal by the Revenue. Hence there is a reason for not following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2008-09 and accordingly, the Principle of Consistency would not apply to the facts of this year. It is well settled proposition of law that the Tribunal is not entitled to review its own order under the garb of rectification of the order u/s 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the prayer made in this miscellaneous petition by the assessee would result in review of its own order by the Tribunal, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the same. M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited (Successor to M/s. Canvasm Technologies Limited) 3 4. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 4.8.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Rahul Chaudhary) (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai.; Dated : 04/08/2023 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 ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai