The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore V. M/s Moody Analytics Knowledge Services India Private Limited (formerly known as Amba Research (India) Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

MA 56/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6921 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHINI BESAGANNI
• Assessee Lawyers: C NARAYANA
• Section: 254(2); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P No.56/Bang/2021 [In ITA No.1231/Bang/2018] Assessment year : 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax , Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru. Vs. M/s Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt Ltd. ( earlier known as M/s Moddys Analytics Knowledge Services (India) Pvt. Ltd./ Amba Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., Municipal Door No.135/1-2, Residency Road, Bengaluru-560 025. PAN – AAECA 9391 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C Narayana, C.A Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The Revenue has filed this miscellaneous petition against the order dated 14/2/2020 passed in the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1231/Bang/2018. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that the grounds urged by the Revenue do not emanate from the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). MP No.56/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 5 3. Now the Revenue has filed this miscellaneous petition stating as under:- “The assessee company filed the return of income for AY 2012- 13 declaring total income of Rs.13,00,13,990/-. And book profit shown was Rs.12,51,74,787/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. The final assessment order was passed determining the assessed income at Rs.19,11,60,015/- Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)- 1, Bengaluru. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal vide order No. Appeal No134/CIT(A)1/2016-17 dated 12.12.2018. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-1,Bengaluru, the Department filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT dismissed the revenue appeal vide order in ITA No. 1231/Bang/2018 dated 14.02.2020 for AY 2012-13. The Hon'ble ITAT in para 13 of order referred above has stated as under: "We have gone through the orders passed by Id CIT(A) and grounds taken the Revenue and we find merit in the submissions made by the Id AR. Accordingly, we reject the transfer pricing grounds urged by the revenue holding that they do not emanate from the order passed by the Id CIT(A)'. It is submitted that the TPO has inadvertently mentioned name of the software comparable companies in the grounds of appeal instead of ITES comparable companies as the assessee is engaged in the business of providing IT enabled services. Revised grounds of appeal are enclosed. Therefore it is respectfully prayed that order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 1231/Bang/2018 dated 14.02.2020 for AY 2012-13may be suitably modified considering the above.” 4. The ld.DR explained that the Revenue has inadvertently raised grounds relating to software services, while the assessee is engaged in providing ITES services. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed stating that the grounds urged by the Revenue do not emanate from the CIT(A). The ld.DR submitted that the Revenue is now filling revised grounds relating to ITES services MP No.56/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 5 and accordingly prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal may kindly be rectified. 5. The ld.AR, on the contrary, submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the revenue is seeking to file fresh appeal through this miscellaneous petition substituting the grounds of appeal and hence it is beyond the scope permitted u/s 254(2) of the Act. 6. We heard the parties and perused the records. We noticed that appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on the reasoning that the grounds urged by it do not emanate from the order passed by Ld CIT(A). The assessee is engaged in the business of providing ITES services, but the grounds raised by the revenue before the Tribunal were related to Software Development Services and hence the appeal of the revenue was dismissed for the reasons stated above. In the present petition, the Revenue seeks to seeks to raise grounds of appeal relating to ITES services. 7. The power given to the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act is to amend its order with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from record. Hence it is necessary for the parties to point out the mistake from the record, so that the Tribunal may amend its order in order to rectify those mistakes. However, in the present petition, the Tribunal seeks to raise new grounds of appeal and these new grounds cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record which would enable the Tribunal to amend its order under the MP No.56/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 5 powers given to it u/s 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. 8. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th December 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (N.V Vasudevan) Vice President (B.R Baskaran) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 7th December 2021 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore MP No.56/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 5 1. Date of Dictation ............................................. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member ......................... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr.P.S ................................... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member .................... 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. ....................... 6. Date of uploading the order on website................................... 7. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so ................................ 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ....................... 9. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement.......................................... 10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk ......................... 11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order ..................................... 12. The date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal Order ............................... 13. Date of Despatch of Order. .....................................................