INDIA INDEX SERVICES AND PRODUCTS LTD, V. ADDL CIT RG 10,

MA 432/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8198 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MOURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH S SHAH
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY (AM) AND SHRI S.S. GO DARA (JM) M.A.NO.432/M/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1950/M/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. INDIA INDEX SERVICES & PRODUCTS LTD., EXCHANGE PLAZA, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400 051. PAN: AAAC15633A VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10, ROOM NO.455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAILESH S. SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.C. MOURYA DATE OF HEARING: 4.5.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 16. 05.2012 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M: THE PRESENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2011. 2. THE BENCHS ORDER DATED 16.3.2011 READS AS UNDER : THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI ANANDEE NA TH MISSHRA CONTRADICTED THE SAME STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D THE DR THUS MADE A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT TH AT THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE DETAILS O F EXPENDITURE AND EXAMINE WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT OF E XPENSES PERTAINING TO PERSONNEL DEPUTED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HOWEV ER THE AO SHALL RESTRICT HIMSELF TO THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN S UBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. LEARNED AR BEFORE US HAS PRESSED THE INSTANT AP PLICATION ON GROUNDS. (I) THE BENCH HAD WRONGLY RECORDED AS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE DR THUS MADE A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THE DETAILS HAVE 2 M.A.NO.432/M/2011 (ARISING IN ITA NO.1950/M/2010) BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE OBSERVATIONS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, THE BENCH HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE RECOR D AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AS TH E LEARNED DR HAD IN FACT MADE A WRONG STATEMENT THAT NO DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, HE HAS REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK COMPRISING 1 TO 43 PAGES DATED 3.3.2011 ALONG WITH THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATE THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTIO N ARE IN THE RECORD OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. LEARNED AR HAS ACCORDINGLY STATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED RECORD BEFORE THE AO. IN THIS REGARD, FINDING IS A LSO THERE IN PARA NO. 2.3 OF THE LD. CIT (A)S ORDER DATED 18.12.2009. HENCE, HE HAS PRAYED FOR RECTIFICATION STATED ABOVE. 5. THE SECOND LIMB OF ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE LEARNE D AR IS BASED ON THE FIRST ONE. HE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT SINCE NO ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE HAS BEEN LAID BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE LEARNED BENCH HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE APPA RENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD IN GIVING NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE AO IN THIS REGARD. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXM I ELECTRONIC CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 188 ITR 398. PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPLICATION IN HAND. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE AP PLICATION. RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER DECIDING THE MAIN CASE. PRAYED FOR R EJECTION OF THE APPLICATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES. ALSO PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS RELIEF SOUGHT. HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE CASE LAW (SUPRA). 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE BENCH HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FA CT OF RECORD. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PAPER BOOK, THE NECESSARY RECORD WAS FILED BEFORE T HE AO. DUE CERTIFICATE THAT THE SAME WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS FILED. THIS FACT IS ALSO VERIFIED FROM THE OPERATIVE 3 M.A.NO.432/M/2011 (ARISING IN ITA NO.1950/M/2010) PART OF THE LD. CIT (A)S ORDER. PER LD. CIT (A) O RDER, NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL. 9. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE NECESSARY FACTS TO THE EXTENT AS ABOVE HAVE ESCAPED THE CONSIDERATION OF T HE LEARNED BENCH. ONCE THAT IS SO, IT IS A FIT CASE IN OUR VIEW TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS FITNESS OF CASE, WE RECTIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 16.3.2011. THEREFORE, DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO RE-FIX THE CASE FOR RE-HEARING AFTER IN TIMATING THE PARTIES. 10. THE APPLICATION IN HAND STANDS ACCEPTED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S. GO DARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATE : 16.5.2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI