AST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI V. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, MUMBAI

MA 51/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2455 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHTAR HANSARI
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES K , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM) AND S HRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (AM) M .A. N O. 51 / MUM /2020 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA N O. 5694 /MUM /201 6 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 1 3 ) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, LTU - 1, CENTRE - 1, 29 TH FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400005 VS. M/S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., GLENMARK HOUSE, HDO CORPORATE BLDG. WING A, B.D. SAWANT MARG, CHAKALA, OPP. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400 099 PAN: AAACG2207L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI AKHTAR H ANSARI (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA (A R) DATE OF HEARING: 16/10/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 / 10 /2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY , JM THROUGH T HIS APPLICATION , PURPORTEDLY FILED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT , THE REVENUE SEEKS RECALL/RECTIFICATION OF ORDE R DATED 31.07.2019 PASSED IN IT (TP)A NO. 5694/MUM/2016. 2. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI AKHTAR H ANS ARI, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI VIJAY MEH TA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SUFFER S FROM MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECOR D , AS , WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HAS INADVERTENTLY NOT DECIDED GROUND NO. 5, 6 AND 7. 2 M .A. NO . 51/MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 1 3 3. HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN GROUND NO. 2 TO 5, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14 A R.W.R. 8D WHILE COMPUTE INCOME UNDER THE NORMA L PROVISIONS AS WELL AS COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 5694/MUM/2016, WE FIND , THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WIT H BOTH THE ISSUES IN PARAGRAPH N OS. 45 TO 47 O F THE ORDER . O N GOING THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF THE T RIBUNAL AT PARA 47 OF THE ORDER, W E FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT AND HAS ISSUED NECESSARY DIRECT ION S TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, IT IS MANIFEST , THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE R AISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 5. THE ONLY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS IN NOT MENTIONING GROUND N O. 5 IN PARAGRAPH 45 OF THE APPEAL ORDER. THEREFORE, WE ORD ER, I N PARAGRAPH 45 OF THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 5694/MUM/2016 , IN PLACE OF GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 4 IT SHOULD BE READ AS GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 5 . 4. AS REGARDS THE CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE THAT GROUND NO. 6 IN THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED, WE FIND THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , BEING MA NO. 497/MUM/2019, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE SAID GROUND. THEREFORE, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE HAV ING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS HAS TO BE DISMISSED. 5. AS REGARDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 7, THE TRIBUNAL , THOUGH , HAS FOLLOWED ITS DECISION ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ITA NO. 4972/MUM/2016 , HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF RESTORING THE ISSUE IT HAS BEEN WRONGLY DISMISSED. WE FIND THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT CORRECT. A S COULD BE SEEN FROM PARAGRAPH 48 AND 49 OF THE APPEAL ORDER , THE TRIBUNAL WAS DECIDED THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.7 BY RELYING UPO N ITS DECISION IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO. 4972/MUM/2016. THOUGH , WHILE DECIDING THE SAME GROUND IN ITA NO. 4972/MUM/2016, THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE APPEAL ORDER HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALLOWED G ROUND FOR 3 M .A. NO . 51/MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 1 3 STATISTICAL PURPOSES, H OWEVER, IN PARAGRAPH 49 OF THE ORDER , WHILE DECIDING THE SAME ISSUE , THE TRIBUNAL HAS MENTION ED THAT THE GROUND IS DISMISSED I N STEAD OF MENTIONING GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . THIS BE ING A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD, W E RECTIFY THE SAME BY SUBSTITUTING PARAGRAPH 49 IN THE APPEAL ORD ER WITH THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 2 OF ITA NO. 4972/MUM/2016. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THIS ORDER , WE ALLOW TH E GROUND FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS , MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OCTOBER , 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 27 / 10 /2020 ALINDRA, PS / 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// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI