DCIT, New Delhi V. Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

MA 633/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1276 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 92D; 92E; 80G; 144C; 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: FRIDAY-C NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 IN ( I.T.A. NO. 507/DEL/2017 A.Y 2012-13) MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD., 807, NEW DELHI HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN : AABCM 6358 F) (APPLICANT) VS DCIT, CIRCLE 16(2), C. R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SANDEEP KARHAIL, ADV. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. AR THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION, SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF BENCH I-1 OF HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HONBLE TRIBUNAL / HONBLE ITAT) DATED 21 JANUARY 2019 (ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. DATE OF HEARING 22.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.12.2019 2 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 2. PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS BEING FILED BY APPLICANT/APPELLANT SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN ORDER DATED 21 JANUARY 2019. BACKGROUND 3. APPLICANT IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF MICROSOFT IRELAND RESEARCH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICROSOFT IRELAND CAPITAL LIMITED), WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY ENTITY OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION, USA. APPLICANT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO MICROSOFT CORPORATION. 4. APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012-13 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,03,54,99,200/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80G AMOUNTING TO RS. 78,94,941/-. A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 31.03.2014 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,93,43,42,780/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80G AMOUNTING TO RS. 78,79,941/-. ALL INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY APPLICANT WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) DURING RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR WERE REPORTED IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO.3CEB FILED UNDER SECTION 92E OF THE ACT. APPLICANT ALSO MAINTAINED PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTATION UNDER SECTION 92D OF THE ACT DETAILING FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, ASSETS EMPLOYED AND RISKS ASSUMED IN RELATION TO SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT DURING RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR ITS OPERATING MARGINS FROM VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE AT ARMS LENGTH. 5. TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT, INTER-ALIA, TREATED APPLICANT TO BE HIGH END SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER AND CHOSE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE WHICH ARE ALSO ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND HIGH QUALITY OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. TPO PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 214,48,19,158/- IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. TPO ALSO PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 40,27,60,586/- IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO PROVISION OF IT ENABLED SERVICES. 6. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) VIDE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.03.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144C(1) OF THE ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF TPO ASSESSED INCOME OF APPLICANT AT INR 558,30,78,945/-. 7. AGGRIEVED BY DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO, APPELLANT FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). 3 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 8. DRP VIDE DIRECTIONS DATED 26.09.2016, INTER-ALIA, REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF ADJUSTMENT IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT. 9. TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2016 GIVING EFFECT TO DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY DRP FOUND IT ENABLED SERVICES SEGMENT TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. HOWEVER, RETAINED UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 214,48,19,158/- IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT. 10. AO VIDE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.11.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) / 144C OF THE ACT ASSESSED INCOME OF APPLICANT AT RS.5,18,03,18,360/-. 11. BEING AGGRIEVED BY FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO, APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (ITA NO. 507/DEL/2017) ON 30.01.2017. 12. HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21 JANUARY 2019 DECIDED THE APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2012-13 DIRECTING EXCLUSION OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY TPO FOR BENCHMARKING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT BY FOLLOWING DECISION OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12. TRIBUNAL ALSO PASSED DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF COMPARABLES SOUGHT TO BE INCLUDED BY APPELLANT PURPORTEDLY FOLLOWING HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR AY 2011-12. 13. DUE TO MISTAKE IN RECORDING OF FACTS IN PARAGRAPH 10 AT PAGE 20 OF HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 21 JANUARY 2019, APPLICANT FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING MA NO. 126/DEL/2019 UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL SEEKING FOLLOWING RELIEF: (A) IF APPLICANT IS TREATED AS NOT INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES (CONTRARY TO CONCLUSION REACHED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2011-12), THEN LIST OF COMPARABLES SET OUT IN THE CHART SUBMITTED ON RECORD WITH JUSTIFICATION FOR INCLUSION DESERVED TO BE ADJUDICATED (KINDLY REFER PARA 14 AND 16 OF MA NO. 126/DEL/2019). (B) ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IF THE APPLICANT IS TREATED AS INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES (FOLLOWING CONCLUSION REACHED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2011-12), COMPARABLES LIKE CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES NEED TO BE INCLUDED (KINDLY REFER PARA 15 AND 16 OF MA NO. 126/DEL/2019). 4 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 14. HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 (ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE B) PARTIALLY DECIDED THE AFORESAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING MA NO. 126/DEL/2019 AND MODIFIED PARAGRAPH 10 AT PAGE 20 OF ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 AS UNDER: 10. THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS NOT INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN THE R&D ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AY 2011-12 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, WE HOLD THAT TPO HAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE MISTAKE IN THE HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS: 15. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM ORDER DATED 18.06.2019, HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD APPLICANT TO BE INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES (FOLLOWING CONCLUSION REACHED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2011-12), HOWEVER THE ORDER IN MA NO. 126/DEL/2019, PERHAPS INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO ISSUE ANY DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WHICH ARE ALSO CLEARLY FOUND TO BE INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES. IT IS SUBMITTED WITH UTMOST RESPECT THAT EVEN AFTER ABOVE MODIFICATION AND AT THIS STAGE, HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 (AFTER MODIFICATION BY ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 IN MA NO. 126/DEL/2019) CONTINUES TO BE INCOMPLETE AND CONTAINS APPARENT MISTAKES. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PARAGRAPH 10 AT PAGE 20 OF HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 IN RESPECT OF CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: AS REGARDS, CIGNITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION- TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (SOFTWARE SERVICES SEGMENT) BOTH OF THE COMPARABLES INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT INVOLVED IN R&D ACTIVITIES WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, WE HELD THAT TPO HAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED THESE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 16. WITH UTMOST RESPECT, HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ORDER EVEN AFTER MODIFICATION BY ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 ADOPTS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE STAND, AS WHILE HOLDING THAT APPLICANT IS ENGAGED IN R&D ACTIVITIES (FOLLOWING AY 2011-12) IT INADVERTENTLY UPHOLDS TPO AND DRPS STAND OF NOT INCLUDING CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND SASKAN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR DIRECTION TO INCLUDE THESE COMPANIES. THIS HAS 5 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 RESULTED IN SERIOUS INJUSTICE TO APPLICANT. APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY PRAYS FOR CORRECTION OF THIS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO INCLUDE CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND SASKAN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. 17. FURTHER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT PARTICULARS OF APPEAL VIZ. ITA NO. AND ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED IN CAUSE TITLE ON FIRST PAGE OF ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY NOTED WRONGLY. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT CORRECT PARTICULARS OF APPEAL ARE ITA NO. 507/DEL/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 18. GIVEN THE ABOVE, WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR HONOURS TO RECALL THE ORDER LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF ADJUDICATION OF ABOVE 2 ISSUES RELATING TO INCLUSION OF COMPARABLES & CORRECTION OF PARTICULARS OF ITA NO. AND AY AND MODIFY THE HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TO ABOVE EXTENT THERE APPEARS TO BE A CLEAR MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH DESERVES TO BE CORRECTED. LEGAL SUBMISSION 19. AT THE OUTSET, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT COURTS HAVE LAID DOWN THAT IN A SCENARIO WHEREIN INCORRECT OBSERVATION/FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY TRIBUNAL THE SAME CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 20. FOR THIS PURPOSE, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCT LTD V CIT (295 ITR 466) WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLE WAS LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT IN A CASE WHERE PREJUDICE HAD RESULTED TO THE PARTY, WHICH PREJUDICE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION AND WHICH ERROR IS MANIFEST ERROR THEN THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN RECTIFYING ITS MISTAKE. 21. FURTHER, KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO BINDING DECISION OF FULL BENCH OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALA (P) LTD. V. ACIT (330 ITR 243) WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT TRIBUNAL, WHILE EXERCISING THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, CAN RECALL ITS ORDER IN ENTIRETY IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT PREJUDICE HAS RESULTED TO THE PARTY WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL'S MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION AND WHICH ERROR IS A MANIFEST ERROR. 22. YOUR HONOURS WOULD APPRECIATE THAT INCORRECT FINDING CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 6 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 23. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AISWARYA TRADING CO. (331 ITR 521) WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SECOND RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BY EITHER PARTY IS MAINTAINABLE ONLY ON ISSUES NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ANY OTHER RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT HONBLE TRIBUNAL IS FULLY EMPOWERED AND MAY IN LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE CORRECT ABOVE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD ON WHICH NO FINDINGS HAVE BEEN RENDERED TILL DATE. 24. APPLICANT SHALL BE GRATEFUL FOR AN OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING IN THIS MATTER. APPLICANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IT HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING MA NO. 126/DEL/2019 UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AGAINST HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 21 JANUARY 2019 FOR AY 2012-13, HOWEVER INADVERTENTLY FEW APPARENT MISTAKES REMAINED TO BE CORRECTED, NECESSITATING PRESENT APPLICATION. 25. APPLICANT PRAYS ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 EVEN AFTER MODIFICATION VIDE ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 IN M.A. 126/DEL/2019 ADOPTS OPPOSITE STAND, AS WHILE HOLDING THAT APPLICANT IS ENGAGED IN R&D ACTIVITIES (FOLLOWING AY 2011-12), IT INADVERTENTLY UPHOLDS TPO AND DRPS STAND OF NOT INCLUDING CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND SASKAN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR DIRECTION TO INCLUDE THESE COMPANIES. THIS HAS RESULTED IN SERIOUS INJUSTICE TO APPLICANT. APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY PRAYS FOR CORRECTION OF THIS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO INCLUDE CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND SASKAN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. FOR MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. AISWARYA TRADING CO. 331 ITR 521 (KER.) 4. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PARTICULARS OF APPEAL VIZ. ITA NO. AND ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED IN CAUSE TITLE ON FIRST PAGE OF ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE 7 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 BEEN INADVERTENTLY NOTED WRONGLY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CORRECT PARTICULARS OF APPEAL ARE ITA NO. 507/DEL/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 5. THUS, THE LD. AR PRAYED TO RECALL THE ORDER LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF ADJUDICATION OF ABOVE 2 ISSUES RELATING TO INCLUSION OF COMPARABLES & CORRECTION OF PARTICULARS OF ITA NO. AND AY AND MODIFY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TO ABOVE EXTENT THERE APPEARS TO BE A CLEAR MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH DESERVES TO BE CORRECTED. 6. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE MISC. APPLICATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS TO PARA 10 OF THE ORDER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 AND SUBSEQUENT RECTIFIED ORDER DATED 18.06.2019, IT APPEARS THAT THE FACTUAL ASPECT WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2019. THEREFORE, THERE IS A CLEAR MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, RECTIFY PARA 10 ON PAGE 20 OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 (MODIFIED BY ORDER DATED 18.06.2019) AS UNDER: THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS NOT INVOLVED IN R & D ACTIVITIES FOR SOFTWARE SERVICES IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN R & D ACTIVITIES WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE A.Y. 2011-12 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, WE HELD THAT TPO HAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY. AS REGARDS, CIGNITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (SOFTWARE SERVICES SEGMENT) BOTH THESE THREE COMPANIES 8 M.A NO. 633/DEL/2019 SEEMS TO BE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR. THESE COMPARABLE COMPANY ARE INVOLVED IN R& D ACTIVITIES FOR SOFTWARE SERVICES IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALSO INVOLVED IN R & D ACTIVITIES WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE TP STUDY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO EXAMINE THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITIES OF THESE TWO COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND INCLUDE IF THE SAME IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF FUNCTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 8. AS REGARD TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN CAUSE TITLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE ORDER IN MISC. APPLICATION NO. 126/DEL/2019, THE SAME IS ALSO RECTIFIED AS ITA NO. 507/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13). 9. IN RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 17 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/12/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI