Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai V. ACIT, Cir. -2(2), Kolkata

MA 57/KOL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The application sought to correct factual inaccuracies noted in the Tribunal's earlier order dated 22.11.2022. The inaccuracies pertained to data recorded in paragraph 7.1 of the order, which affected the computations related to the adjustments for capacity utilization and working capital levels in comparison with the selected comparables. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the corrected data, allowed the application, thereby correcting the factual information without altering the final conclusions of the original order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125308 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.57/Kol/2022 In ITA No.222/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd. 119, Thiruneermalai Road, Chrompet, Chennai-600044, Tamil Nadu. (PAN: AAACH7739L) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata. (Applicant) (Respondent) Present for: Applicant by : Smt. Pallavi Paul, AR Respondent by : Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Misc. application filed by the assessee is against the order of this Tribunal dated 22.11.2022 for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 222/Kol/2021. 2. In the present Misc. Application, assessee has submitted that there are certain factual information which has been recorded incorrectly while giving findings on the grounds raised by the assessee. Assessee, through this Misc. Application has submitted to get the factual information corrected in the impugned order for which it has placed on record the correct data which needs to be replaced, more particularly, in para 7.1 at page 8 of the impugned order. The details of factual information which needs correction is as under: 2 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 3 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 4 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 5 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 6 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 3. On the above factual information, specific query was raised by the Bench to understand if this change/correction has any bearing on the final conclusion and finding given in the impugned order. The Ld. 7 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 Counsel for the assessee submitted and demonstrated that the final conclusion and finding remains the same except for some changes which would occur in the computation for the adjustment which needs to be made by the Ld. AO by considering this correct factual information. On confrontation of these submissions and information to the Ld. Sr. DR, no objections were raised. 4. We have heard the submissions made by the assessee and the Ld Sr. DR and gone through the implication of the correct factual information now referred by the assessee. We note that the conclusion arrived at by giving finding on the grounds does not have any bearing in terms of the final outcome of the appeal except for change in the computation of permissible adjustments which is contained in para 16 of the impugned order. It is worthwhile to reproduce the conclusion drawn and finding given to keep the same in juxtaposition, which is as under: “16. Considering the factual position detailed above and the position of law as referred in judicial precedents stated above as well as under the regulations and guidelines quoted hereinabove, we agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to permit making adjustment in respect of capacity utilization and working capital levels vis-a-vis the comparables based on the methodology adopted by it as reproduced hereinabove. However, in the course of hearing and also by way of written submission, Ld. Counsel has pressed upon only two grounds i.e. ground nos. 2 and 3 (supra) which when taken up in juxtaposition with the finding given by Ld. CIT(A) in the last para of his order leads to the selection of comparables by Ld. TPO and computation of PLI thereof has undisturbed. As already stated in the above paragraphs, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed only on Ground No.2 and 3 and did not make any submissions in respect of all the other grounds, the same are dismissed as such.” 5. Thus, we allow the Miscellaneous application of the assessee to incorporate the correct factual information in para 7.1 of the impugned order so as to read the order with this replaced correct 8 MANo.57/Kol/2022 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2009-10 information reproduced in this order. Accordingly, Misc. Application of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, Misc. Application of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:17th May, 2023 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Applicant: 2. The Respondent: 3. CIT(A)-22, Kolkata 4. CIT, Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //True Copy// By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata