M/s Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer(TDS), LTU, Bangalore

MA 89/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6509 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GURUNATHAN
• Section: 6; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE S HRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO S . 89 & 90/BANG/2018 (IN I.T . A. NO S . 1195/BANG/2014 & 474 /BANG/20 16) (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 12 - 13 & 2 013 - 14 ) M/S. VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD., YALACHALAHALLY VILLAGE, TAVARAKERE POST, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE - 562 122 . . PETITIONER. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), LTU, BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE. R E SPONDENT BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT (D.R) DATE OF H EARING : 18.05.2018. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 18. 05 .201 8 . O R D E R PER SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , A .M . : TH E S E MISC. PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SEEKING THE RECTIFICATION OF THE OR DER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1195/BANG/2014 & 474/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012 - 2 M P NOS.89 & 90 /BANG/201 8 13 & 2013 - 14 RESPECTIVELY ON THE GROUND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD NOT CONSIDERED VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. VS. DCIT 383 ITR 59 (KAR). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT PETITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE PETITIONER COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL AND NOT CONSID E RED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FROM MERE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE A FTER REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. T E CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (LTU) TDS IN ITA NO.3/BANG/2015 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED , HAD RENDERED CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS CREATED AT THE END OF THE YEAR ARE NOT ON ADHOC BASIS SINCE THE SERVICES WERE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE PAY EES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. THUS , THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE BASED ON THE F ACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD . UNDE R THE GARB OF THE PRESENT PETITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IS ONLY TRYING TO RE - ARGUE 3 M P NOS.89 & 90 /BANG/201 8 THE APPEAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS ONLY A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE THE PETITION , FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. PETITIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE DI S MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2 01 8 . SD/ - ( LALIET KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 18 .05.2018. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 4 CIT(A) 2 RESPONDENT 5 DR. ITAT, BANGALORE 3 CIT 6 GUARD FILE SE NIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.