VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4215/DEL/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issues revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the non-granting of credit for a tax demand that was adjusted against a refund for a different assessment year. The Tribunal found that the additions involved had been previously decided in favor of the assessee, making the current appeal on the validity of reassessment purely academic. However, regarding the non-grant of credit for the tax, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to address this issue in accordance with the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23977 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN VED; WAY OF ADJUSTMENT AGAINST REFUND AY; WAY OF ADJUSTMENT AGAINST REFUND AY; WAY OF ADJUSTMENT AGAINST REFUND AY
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 250; 271(1)(c); 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2003 Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., (Formerly known as Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd.), Circle Office: C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- New Delhi-110020. PAN NO. AAACS 4457 Q Appellant Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd.), 48, Okhla -II, Vs. Dy. CIT Circle 17(1), Delhi. PAN NO. AAACS 4457 Q Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ketan Ved by : Ms. Vatsala Jha, PCIT Date of Hearing : 24/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd 1 ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals XIX, New Delhi ('learned CIT(A)') has erred in passing an section ('u/s') 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), partly confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi ('learned AO') u/s 147/143(3) for the subject AY, Ground No. 1 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act and passing the order under section with section 147 of the Act. 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act alleging esc notice under section 148 of the act is bad in law and void ab initio. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without havin the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and hence the notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio. 1.3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case an in continuing with the re 147 of the Act, before serving a speaking order, disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant against initiation of the re- assessment proceedings. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 are without prejudice to Ground 1 Ground No. 2- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting credit for INR Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment 14, raising following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals XIX, New Delhi ('learned CIT(A)') has erred in passing an order under section ('u/s') 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), partly confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi ('learned AO') u/s 147/143(3) for the subject AY, Ground No. 1- Proceedings u/s 147 of the Act 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act and passing the order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act alleging escapement of income and hence, the notice under section 148 of the act is bad in law and void ab 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without having any valid reasons for initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and hence the notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and void ab 1.3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in continuing with the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, before serving a speaking order, disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant against initiation of the assessment proceedings. rounds 2, 3 and 4 are without prejudice to Ground 1 - Non-grant of demand recovered earlier 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting credit for INR Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd 2 ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals XIX, New order under section ('u/s') 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), partly confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi ('learned AO') u/s 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 143(3) read 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and in issuing notice under section apement of income and hence, the notice under section 148 of the act is bad in law and void ab- 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in issuing notice under section g any valid reasons for initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and hence the notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and void ab- 1.3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the d in law, the learned AO has erred assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, before serving a speaking order, disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant against initiation of the rounds 2, 3 and 4 are without prejudice to Ground 1 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting credit for INR 17,226,409 which represents assessment order for the subject AY and recovered from the Appellant by way of adjustment against refund for AY 2005 Ground No. 3 the Act 3. On the facts and in the circ the learned CIT(A) has erred upholding the order of the learned AO with respect to levying and computing interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. Ground No. 4 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal in relation to initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the learned AO holding that the ground 2. At the outset, the that the additions involved in the appeal have already been decided in favor of the assessee on merit by the Tribunal in 4725/Del/2013. As a result, the grounds raised regarding the validity of the reassessment are now purely academic. In view of the submissions made by both parties, since the merits of the case have already been decided in favor of the assessee, the challenge to the validity of the reassessment does not require adjudication at this stage and is left open for consideration at an appropriate stage. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is dismissed 3. With respect to assessee submitted that the the refund adjusted a Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 17,226,409 which represents tax demand raised vide original assessment order for the subject AY and recovered from the Appellant by way of adjustment against refund for AY 2005 Ground No. 3- Levy of Interest under section 234A and 234B of 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred upholding the order of the learned AO with respect to levying and computing interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. Ground No. 4 - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal in relation to initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the learned AO holding that the ground is premature. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions involved in the appeal have already been decided in favor of the assessee on merit by the Tribunal in . As a result, the grounds raised regarding the reassessment are now purely academic. In view of the submissions made by both parties, since the merits of the case have already been decided in favor of the assessee, the challenge to the validity of the reassessment does not require adjudication at this stage and is left open for consideration at an appropriate stage. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is dismissed. With respect to Ground No. 2, the Learned Counsel assessee submitted that the Learned CIT(A) did not grant credit for the refund adjusted against the demand. Therefore, he requested Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd 3 ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 tax demand raised vide original assessment order for the subject AY and recovered from the Appellant by way of adjustment against refund for AY 2005-06. Levy of Interest under section 234A and 234B of umstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred upholding the order of the learned AO with respect to levying and computing interest under section Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal in relation to initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the for the assessee submitted that the additions involved in the appeal have already been decided in favor of the assessee on merit by the Tribunal in ITA No. . As a result, the grounds raised regarding the reassessment are now purely academic. In view of the submissions made by both parties, since the merits of the case have already been decided in favor of the assessee, the challenge to the validity of the reassessment does not require adjudication at this stage and is left open for consideration at an appropriate stage. Learned Counsel for the did not grant credit for gainst the demand. Therefore, he requested that the Assessing Officer In our opinion, the assessee should file an appropriate application before the Assessing Officer to address this grievance. However, for the disposal of this ground, we also direct the Assessing Officer to consider any such application filed by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the law and grant due credit for the tax collected via refund after conducting the necessa verification. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 3. The ground No. 3 is consequential, whereas ground no. 4 is premature, hence same are not required to be adjudicated and dismissed as infructuous. 4. The appeal of the asse statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 Assessing Officer be directed to grant the necessary credit. In our opinion, the assessee should file an appropriate before the Assessing Officer to address this grievance. er, for the disposal of this ground, we also direct the to consider any such application filed by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the law and grant due credit for the tax collected via refund after conducting the necessa Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical 3. The ground No. 3 is consequential, whereas ground no. 4 is premature, hence same are not required to be adjudicated and dismissed as infructuous. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed for . nounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025. Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd 4 ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 be directed to grant the necessary credit. In our opinion, the assessee should file an appropriate rectification before the Assessing Officer to address this grievance. er, for the disposal of this ground, we also direct the to consider any such application filed by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the law and grant due credit for the tax collected via refund after conducting the necessary Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical 3. The ground No. 3 is consequential, whereas ground no. 4 is premature, hence same are not required to be adjudicated and partly allowed for /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd 5 ITA No. 4215/DEL/2013 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "