DCIT, Bangalore V. Sami Labs Limited, Bangalore

MA 97/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8417 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S CHAKRAPANI
• Section: 144C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 97/BANG/2019 (IN IT (TP) A NO. 186 /BANG/201 5 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6 (1) (1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. SAMI LABS LTD., 19/1 & 19/2, FIRST MAIN, SECOND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE 560 058. PAN: AADCS2549E APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MS. SUSAN MATHEW, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI V. S. CHAKRAPANI, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 .0 9 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 1 0.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS M.P. IS FILED BY THE REVENUE CONTENDING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 2. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE M.P., IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE THAT AS PER PARA NO. 3 OF THE M.P., THE APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS POINTED OUT AND AS PER THE SAME, THE MISTAKE IS THIS THAT ALTHOUGH THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK ON SOME ISSUES TO THE FILE OF DRP AS PER PARA NOS. 11 TO 13 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT AS PER SUB-SECTION (13) OF SECTION 144C OF THE IT ACT, UPON RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS M.P. NO. 97/BANG/2019 (IN IT(TP)A NO. 186/BANG/2015) PAGE 2 OF 2 FROM DRP, THE AO HAS TO PASS ORDER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED BY THE AO AGAINST WHICH, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE SAME HAS TO BE COMPULSORILY BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP AND IN SUBSTANCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THE ORDER OF THE DRP ONLY. AS PER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 OF THE I T ACT, THE TRIBUNAL MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS AS IT THINKS FIT. IN VIEW OF THESE PROVISIONS, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER AS PER WHICH SOME OF THE ISSUES HAD BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF DRP. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH OCTOBER, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.