CHT INDIA P.LTD, V. ADDL CIT RG 8(1),

MA 646/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0348 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER
• Assessee Lawyers: N M PORWAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , ! , ' , #$ ! BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A. M. AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, J.M. M.A. NO. 646/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4278/MUM/2006) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S CHT INDIA PVT. LTD. 352, SOLITARIE PARK,151 M.VASANJI ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400093 PAN: AAACC3596Q V/S ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8(1), MUMBAI (APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI N.M.PORWAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PARMINDER DATE OF HEARING : 03-05-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-05-2013 PER VIVEK VARMA, JM IN THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN, IT HAS SOUGHT TO RECTIFY THE ORDE R DATED 11.07.2012. IN THIS M.A. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED PARA 10 OF ITA ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS OBJECTED TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO CHT GMBH, GERMANY (CHTG). ACCORDING TO THE AR, THE PAYMENT H AD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E. CHT INDIA (CHTI) TO CH TG. WHEREAS IN PARAGRAPH 10 AND 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ITA NO. 4278/MUM/06, IT HAS BEEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY AJIT KUMAR GORDHANDAS MERCHANT (AGM) TO CS TG. THE AR, TOOK US THROUGH VARIOUS DOCUMENT WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE, I.E. CHTI WHO WERE MADE IN PAY MENT TO THE CSTG. 2. FROM OUR RECORDS AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX APPEALS CIT(A) DATED 10.05.2006, WE FIND THAT T HE BASIS OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO CSTG, IS AS PER SHARE HOLDERS AGREE MENT DATED 21.10.1995. THIS AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN AJIT KUMAR G ORDHANDAS MERCHANT AND CSTG, (WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED AT APB A T 26 TO 61). THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED PARAGRAPH IS A FINDING ON FACT WHICH IS AS PER THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE ASSES SEE AND REFERRED TO, IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF PAYMENT, THE A R HAS SUBMITTED IN THE MA, THAT AN INCORRECT INFERENCE HAD BEEN DRAWN BY T HE ITAT, THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SETTING UP OF MANUFACTURI NG FACILITY BY CHTI, WHEREAS, FACTUALLY, IT WAS FOR SUPPLY OF TECH NICAL KNOWHOW. 4. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE ITAT AFTER EXAMINING THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT AND AFTER EXAMINAT ION OF THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) WAS SUSTAINED, THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES, WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED ONLY TO THE SETTING UP OF THE MANUFACTUR ING FACILITY BY THE CHTI. 5. BOTH THE ABOVE ISSUES DEALT WITH BY THE ITAT ARE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW O F THE SAME, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION, AS ENVI SAGED U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKES APP ARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2012, WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIE D. 7. HENCE, M.A., AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 15 TH MAY 2013. 15 TH MAY , 2013 SD/- SD/- ( .. ,/P.M.JAGTAP ) ( )** * + /VIVEK VARMA ) ,- / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ,- / JUDICIAL MEMBER / / MUMBAI, / DATE: 15 TH MAY, 2013 SHEKHAR COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A).. 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR .. BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE ,0 ) 1. //TRUE COPY// %& / BY ORDER, 2/,3 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR 4 56 5784 , / / ITAT, MUMBAI