Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle-1, LTU, Bengaluru V. M/s Mindtree Ltd., Bengaluru

MA 88/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6504 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARASIMHA RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: UMASHANKAR GAUTAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 88/BANG/2018 (IN IT(TP ) A NO. 1705/BANG/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 1, LTU, BANGALORE. VS. M/S. MINDTREE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO MINDTREE WIRELESS PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS KYOCERA WIRELESS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), GLOBAL VILLAGE, RVCE POST, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 059. PAN: AACCK 1293L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. NARASIMHARAJU, JCIT (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI UMA SHANKAR GAUTAM, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 . 0 4 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 0 5 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS M.P. IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THIS IS CONTE NTED IN THE M.P. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPEALS WERE FILED BY BOTH SIDES AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) BUT IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS MENTI ONED BY MISTAKE THE NAME OF DRP IN THE PLACE OF CIT(A). 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD . DR OF REVENUE THAT WHEREVER THE NAME OF DRP IS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUN AL ORDER, THE NAME OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE MENTIONED BECAUSE THESE APPEALS OF BOTH SIDES ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND NOT AGAINST THE DIR ECTION OF DRP. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE ALSO AGREED TO THIS SUBMISSION OF LD. DR O F REVENUE. M.P. NO. 88/BANG/2018 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 1705/BANG/2013) PAGE 2 OF 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY BOTH SIDES AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ALSO BECAUSE IN TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY BOTH SIDES REPRODUCED IN PARAS 2, 3 AND 4 OF TRIBUNAL OR DER, THE GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND NOT AGAINST THE ORDER OF DR P. HENCE WE HOLD THAT WHEREVER THE NAME OF DRP IS MENTIONED IN PARAS 5 AN D 7 OF IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THESE PARAS SHOULD BE READ BY REPLACING THE NAME OF CIT (A) IN PLACE OF DRP. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE REVENUE STA NDS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 04 TH MAY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.