Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd.), Vapi V. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

MA 67/SRT/2022

AI Insights

This case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by both the Revenue and the assessee, Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd., seeking rectification of the order dated 15.06.2022 passed in ITA No.234/Ahd/2016. The Revenue's application sought correction of a clerical error where 'TPO' was mentioned instead of 'jurisdictional Assessing Officer'. The assessee's application addressed issues regarding the exclusion of scrap income from profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB and the admissibility of additional grounds of appeal. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's application and partly accepted the assessee's application, correcting the clerical error but rejecting the other requests.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302199 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Indian Oil Petronas (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Reckitt Benkiser (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 80IB; 10B; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A.No.4/SRT/2023 (AY 2011-12) (Arising out of ITA No.234/AHD/2016) (Hearing in Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vapi Circle, Room NO.704, 7 th Floor, Fortune Square-II, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 Disst. Navasari-396321 Vs M/s Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd.), Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi-396191 PAN No. AAACH 7063 F Applicant / Revenue Respondent /assessee M.A No.67/SRT/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) (arising out ITA No.234/AHD/2016) M/s Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd.), Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi-396191 PAN No. AAACH 7063 F Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vapi Circle, Room NO.704, 7 th Floor, Fortune Square-II, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 Disst. Navasari-396321 Applicant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by Shri A Gopalakrishnan Aiyer, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 17.03.2023 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of pronouncement 23.03.2023 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue as well as assessee for pointing out certain mistakes erupted in the order dated 15.06.2022 passed in ITA No.234/Ahd/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 and sought MA No.4/SRT/2023 & 67/SRT/2022 (a/o ITA No.234/Ahd/2016 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. 2 rectification. Both the MAs are filed for correction in the order dated 15.06.2022, therefore, both the MAs are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The Revenue in its MA No.4/SRT/2023 stated that while passing the order dated 15.06.2022, corporate issue to the file of assessing officer, however, the word “Transfer Pricing Officer” (TPO) was typed instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue made a submission on similar line that issue related to profit of Silvassa-2 Units and Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and intra division transfer of deduction under section 80IB and 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to ‘the Act’) and exclusion of scrap income from profit eligible deduction under section 80IB of the Act was restored to the TPO instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that necessary correction may be rectified in the order of Tribunal. 3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee agrees and would submit that he has also pointed out similar mistake which are occurred unintentionally and similar prayer is made by them in their MA as well. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and find that in the order dated 15.06.22, we restored certain the corporate issue / additions to the file of assessing officer, however, the word ‘TPO’ was MA No.4/SRT/2023 & 67/SRT/2022 (a/o ITA No.234/Ahd/2016 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. 3 typed instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Therefore, we direct the issues pertains to corporate issue / addition, which were mentioned as restored back to TPO, be read as “assessing officer”. Thus, relief / prayer made by the Revenue in its MA No.04/SRT/2023 is accepted with the above directions. 5. Now adverting MA filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that there is mistake in para-42 of the order which relates to ground No.6 relating to exclusion of income from sales of scrap to the tune of Rs.42,49,512/- for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. Similar claim of assessee was allowed in AY 2005-06 in favour of assessee and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Tax Appeal No.130 of 2016. Therefore, the Tribunal while passing the order has not considered the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, which is mistake apparent on record. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the Ground No.6 ought to have been allowed. 6. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that while adjudicating the additional grounds No.1 & 2, the Tribunal dismissed by holding that the same as not admissible at this stage, which is mistake apparent on record and require rectification. The Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the orders of Co-ordinate Benches of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Petronas (P.) Ltd. reported in [2021] 127 taxmann.com 389 (Kolkata- MA No.4/SRT/2023 & 67/SRT/2022 (a/o ITA No.234/Ahd/2016 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. 4 Trib.) and Reckitt Benkiser (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxmann.com 5119 (Kolkata-Trib.), wherein the Tribunal admitted and adjudicated the additional ground on similar issue. Thus, not following the decision of co-ordinate Benches of Kolkata Tribunal, thus, by considering these two decisions made suitable correction / rectification in the order dated 15.06.2022. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that Hon'ble Bench has taken a conscious view by dismissing the additional ground of assessees appeal, which cannot be said as mistake apparent on record. And while restoring the grounds of appeal relating to deduction under section 80IB of the Act, on account of sale of scrap, was also restored back to jurisdictional Assessing Officer / TPO after considering the entire facts of the case. The assessee is seeking review of the order of Tribunal which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the contents of MA and the order dated 15.06.2022. First we are taking the issues of additional grounds of appeal which relates to Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). Such additional grounds of appeal were not admitted as the fact for adjudication of such additional grounds of appeal were not emanating from the orders of lower authorities. Thus, such additional grounds of appeal were not admitted. So the assessee by way of present application is seeking review of the order, which is not MA No.4/SRT/2023 & 67/SRT/2022 (a/o ITA No.234/Ahd/2016 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. 5 permissible under the scope of application under section 254(2), thus, the application is rejected to that extent. 9. So far as other contention of ld AR for the assessee that similar claim of assessee was allowed in AY 2005-06 in favour of assessee by tribunal and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Tax Appeal No.130 of 2016. We find that at the time of considering the relevant ground of appeal, we have given clear direction to the assessing officer to follow the order of AY 2005-06. Thus, there is no mistake which can be said to be apparent. The assessee is require to show get the details examined by assessing officer. Now, the assessee wants to allow the relief without being verified from the assessing officer. Thus, the plea of rectifying the order to that extent is also rejected. 10. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed and the Miscellaneous Application of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 23/03/2023 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER सूरत /Surat, Dated: 23/03/2023 Dkp. Out Sourcing Sr.P.S MA No.4/SRT/2023 & 67/SRT/2022 (a/o ITA No.234/Ahd/2016 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. 6 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order Senior Private Secretary/ Private Secretary/Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat