TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED(FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.), MUMBAI V. ADDL. CIT RANGE - 1(3), MUMBAI

MA 789/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5694 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH DESHPANDEDR
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYAS
• Keywords: Extension of stay

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -KBENCH MUMBAI , , , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAM LAL NEGI,JUDICIAL MEMBER / MA NO.789/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF / SA NO.361/MUM/2017) /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) TATA COMMUNICATION LIMITED VIDESH SANCHAR BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN:AAACV 2808 C VS. DCIT 1(3)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI SAURABH DESHPANDE-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DINESH VYAS / DATE OF HEARING: 12.01.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.01.2018 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ,DATED 16/10/20 17,THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS STATED THAT IT HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY. 2009-10,THAT IT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR STAYING THE DEMAND ,THAT VIDE ITS ORDER,DATED 4/3/1 6,THE TRIBUNAL HAD STAYED THE DEMAND, THAT STAY ORDER WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME,THAT ON 1 8.8.2017 THE TRIBUNAL EXTENDED THE STAY, THAT ON 21/8/2017 THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO ABOU T THE EXTENSION OF STAY,THAT ON 21/8/ 2017,HE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT OF REFUND DUE AGAINST T HE DEMAND STAYED BY THE TRIBUNAL ,THAT ON 22/8/17 THE COMPANY FILED ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE AO,THAT ON 24/8/17 IT FURNISHED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO, THAT ON 24/8/2017 THE AO MADE ADJUSTMENT OF REFUNDS,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT TH E ADJUSTMENT,THAT THE AO SENT THE INFORMATION ON 14/9/2017 ABOUT ADJUSTMENT OF DEMAND , THAT ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE AO WAS A MODE OF RECOVERY,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD POWER TO O RDER REFUND OF TAXES ILLEGALLY RECOVERED. 2. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)MADE THE SAME SUBMISSIONS THAT ARE PART OF THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE.HE RELIED UPON THE CAS ES OF DIT VS.ITAT(361 ITR 469);DIT VS. ITAT(262CTR569);MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (75 TTJ) 939); HDFC BANK (354 ITR 77);MARUTI SUZUKI (347ITR43); TATA TELESERVICES (286 CTR 336) AND PEPSI FOODS (376 ITR 87). 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR),JT. COMMISSION ER RANGE(1)(3) AND THE DCIT-1 (3) (2)WERE PRESENT WITH THE DR IN THE COURT-ROOM.THE D R STATED THAT THE AO WOULD FOLLOW THE MA/789/M/17(A/O/O.SA/361/M/17 TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 2 DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT THERE WAS SOME MISU NDERSTANDING IN INTERPRETING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT INADVERTENT MISTAKE WAS UNINTENTI ONAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT DEMAND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECOVERED,FOR THE AY.2009-10,BY WAY OF ADJUSTM ENT OF REFUND.THE TRIBUNAL HAD POWER TO EXTEND THE STAY BEYOND A PERIOD OF 365 DAYS,AS H ELD BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES AND BY THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF PEPSI FOODS (SUPRA).THEREFORE,RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE DIT VS. ITAT(SUPRA),WE DIRECT THE AO TO REFUND THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.2009-10. MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JANUARY, 2018. 12 , 2017 SD/- SD /- ( / RAM LAL NEGI ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 12 .01.2018. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.