M/s Mphasis Limited , Bangalore V. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-4 , Bangalore

SA 31/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6178 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI P.K GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER S.P NO.31/BANG/2019 [IN ITA NO.67/BANG/2019] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S MPHASIS LTD., BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, K.R PURAM, WTC 3, BLOCK B, 1 ST FLOOR, MARATHA HALLI, DODDENEKUNDI, BANGALORE-560 048. PAN - AAACB 6820 C VS. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SPECIAL RANGE-4, BANGALORE. APPL I C ANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.05.2019 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS STAY APPLICATION SEEKI NG STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.110.71 CRORES, WHICH CO NSISTED OF TAX DEMAND OF RS.71.41 CRORES AND INTEREST DEMAND OF RS .39.30 CRORES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE LD COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE AO HAD MADE IDENTICAL ADDITIONS IN THE EARLIER YEAR S AND MOST OF THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX D EMAND SHALL GO S.P NO.31/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 5 DOWN DRASTICALLY, IF THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERE D BY THE TRIBUNAL IS APPLIED IN THIS YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE SAME HAS RESULTED IN A REFUND OF RS .80.31 CRORES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS ORDERS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR OT HER YEARS ALSO AND THE SAME WOULD RESULT IN MORE REFUNDS. ACCORDINGLY THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE IS MO RE THAN THE OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR C OMPLETE STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND. 3. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ORDER PASSED FOR AY 2007-08 IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS MENTIONED THAT ENTIRE REFUND AMOUN T SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND. THE LD A. R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS AND CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ADJUST THE REFUND ONLY AGA INST THE TAX DEMAND, WHICH WAS NOT STAYED. 1. ACIT VS. SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. LTD (2015)(6 2 TAXMANN.COM 339)(MAD) 2. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD VS. DCIT (2011)(16 TAXMANN.COM 40)(DELHI) ACCORDINGLY HE PRAYED THAT SUITABLE DIRECTION MAY B E GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 4. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY STATED IN THE ORDER THAT THE REFUND AMOUNT SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND. ACCORDINGLY SHE PR AYED THAT THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY BE LEFT TO THE WISDOM OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. S.P NO.31/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 5 5. WE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY DETER MINED REFUND AMOUNT OF RS.80.31CRORES IN THE ORDER PASSED FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE A BOVE SAID REFUND AMOUNT IS MORE THAN THE TAX PORTION OF THE DEMAND O UTSTANDING FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, ON CONSIDERAT ION OF THIS FACT ALONE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BALANCE OF CONVE NIENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF GRANTING COMPLETE STAY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE GRANT STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR A PERIOD OF SI X MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER OR TILL THE DATE OF DISPOSAL OF APPEAL, WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES EARLIER. WITH REGARD TO THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE REFUND SHOULD NOT BE ADJUSTED AGAIN ST THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPRO ACH THE TAX AUTHORITIES WITH ITS PRAYER. 6. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL IS POSTED F OR HEARING IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2019. SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED COM PLETE STAY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE NOT TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, FAILING WHICH THE PRESENT STAY ORDER IS SUBJ ECTED TO REVIEW BY THE DIVISIONAL BENCH HEARING THE APPEAL. 7. ACCORDINGLY, THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH MAY , 2019 . SD/ - ( P.K GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 10 TH MAY, 2019. / VMS / S.P NO.31/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER A SST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. S.P NO.31/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..