Vimta Labs Ltd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Cir - 3 (3), Hyderabad

MA 51/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6618 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GANDHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.51/HYD/11 : ASST. YEARS: 2003-04, (IN ITA NO.103/H/07) : M/S.VIMTA LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAACV 7244 E) V/S- ACIT, CIR-3(3), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPLICANT BY : SHRI AJAY GANDHI RESPONDENT BY : SRI K.J. RAO O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY/MODIFY ITS COMMON ORDER PASSED IN IT A NOS. 103/HYD/2007, 104/HYD/07 & 433/HYD/07 DATED 12-11-2010 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2002-03 RESP ECTIVELY. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE WAS MADE ON TWO ALT ERNATE GROUNDS:- M.A.N.51/HYD/11 M/S. VIMTA LABS. LIMITED, HYD. ===================================== 2 I) THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPORTED OUT OF INDIA CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA II) THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN DATA PROCESSING ACTIVITY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CLEARLY COVERED BY TH E FIRST GROUND I.E., EXPORT OF CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA. COM PUTER SOFTWARE IS EXPLAINED BY THE SECTION ITSELF TO INCLUDE CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA. IN SUPPORT OF ITS STAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED IN ITS PAPER BOOK JUST ONE SET OF DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO ITS CUSTOMER S AS PART OF JUST ONE PROJECT. THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN A FEW HUNDRED P AGES OF COMPLEX ANALYSIS, GENERATED BY EXPENSIVE AND COMPLEX SOF TWARE AND PROCESSES. THIS KIND OF DOCUMENT WAS A RESULT OF THE WORK DONE BY IT AND WAS CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA WHICH WAS SENT OVER TH E INTERNET TO THE CLIENT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVERY CUSTOMER WAS GIVEN SIMILAR ANALYSIS AND EACH SET OF ANALYSIS DOCUMENTS WAS CUSTOMIZED DATA IN ELECTRONIC FORM SENT OVER THE INTERNET TO THE CLIENTS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SENDS CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA, IT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY SEC. 80HHE OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS PURP OSE, IT WAS NOT EVEN NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE INVOLVED IN DA TA PROCESSING ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, THIRD MEMBER, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ACCURUM INDIA PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 34 DTR 301, CHENNAI AND THE ASSESSEES CASE WA S SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUN AL, BY OVERSIGHT, IGNORED THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, AND THE BINDING NATURE OF THE AFORESAID ORDER, AND HAS GONE ON TO EXAMINE ONLY IF T HE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN DATA PROCESSING ACTIVITY. HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED OR APPROPRIATE ORDERS MAYBE PASSED. M.A.N.51/HYD/11 M/S. VIMTA LABS. LIMITED, HYD. ===================================== 3 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN RECTIFYING/RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RE LIED ON THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE DID NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM TH E RECORD AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ACCURUM [S UPRA] ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE DEA LT WITH ALL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ELABORATELY IN A COMPOSITE MA NNER BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS OF T HE PARTIES CAREFULLY WITHOUT MISSING ANY ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND THE CASE LAWS, INCLUDING THAT OF ITO VS. ACCURUM INDIA [SUPRA] RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PRESENT SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO E NTERTAIN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE TO REVIEW OUR OWN OR DER IN THE INSTANT CASE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS TO STATE IN ITS JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT H AS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CON SIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO MERI T IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DEVOID OF ANY M ERIT AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS REJECTED. M.A.N.51/HYD/11 M/S. VIMTA LABS. LIMITED, HYD. ===================================== 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02-06-2011. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (AKBER BASHA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 02-06-2011. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. VIMTA LABS LTD., PLOT NO.142, IDA PHASE-II, CH ERLAPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERAB AD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AP-III, HYDERABAD THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. JMR* M.A.N.51/HYD/11 M/S. VIMTA LABS. LIMITED, HYD. ===================================== 5