Webex Communications India Private Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

MA 45/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7257 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R N SIDDAPP A JI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS. 43 & 45/BANG/2019 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 1615/BANG/2012 & 545/BANG/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 & 2010 - 11 M/S. WEBEX COMMUNICATIONS INDIA P. LTD., NO. 2, NORTH PARK ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AABCC0256A VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12 (5), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHAVALI NARAYAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI R.N. SIDDAPPAJI, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 19 .0 7 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 .0 7 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE TWO M.PS. POINTING OUT CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2010-11. 2. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THESE M.PS., IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL ALTHOUGH REPRODUCED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON PAGE NO. 2 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER BUT THIS GROUND WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA NO. 5 OF THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER, DISCUSSION AND DECISION IS REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND NOT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, HE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER PARA NO. 6 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE DISCUSSION AND DECISION IS REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, EITHER BOTH THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS SHOULD BE RECTIFIED IN A SUITABLE MANNER OR BOTH THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS SHOULD BE RECALLED FOR FRESH DECISION. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT IT WILL BE IN THE FITNESS OF THE THINGS IF BOTH THESE TWO TRIBUNAL ORDERS ARE RECALLED FOR FRESH DECISION BECAUSE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES M.P. NOS. 43 & 45/BANG/2019 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 1615/BANG/2012 & 545/BANG/2015) PAGE 2 OF 2 APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, AT LEAST THAT ORDER HAS TO BE RECALLED IN ANY CASE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THESE TWO TRIBUNAL ORDERS BECAUSE WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(2A) OF THE IT ACT WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE IN THIS YEAR, THE ORDER HAS TO BE RECALLED FOR DECIDING THIS GROUND. REGARDING THE OTHER MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE I.E. IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE DISCUSSION IS REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 AND IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE DISCUSSION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 IS REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ALSO, WE FIND THAT THIS SUBMISSION IS CORRECT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RECALL BOTH THESE TRIBUNAL ORDERS FOR FRESH DECISION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THESE TWO APPEALS FOR FRESH HEARING IN REGULAR COURSE AND NOTICE SHOULD BE ISSUED TO BOTH SIDES. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE M.PS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE . SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 25 TH JULY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.