Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S. Citrix R & D India Pvt Ltd , Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M.P. No. 164/Bang/2018
(in IT(TP)A No.383/Bang/2017)
Assessment Year :2012-13
M/s. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd.,
The Assistant Commissioner of
Prestige Dynasty, Ground Floor,
Income Tax,
33/2, Ulsoor Road, Vs.
Circle - 2 (1) (1),
Bangalore - 560 042.
Bangalore.
PAN: AABCN3639C
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Shri Umashankar Gautam, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 06.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2018
ORDER
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
The assessee has filed this in which, the assessee has contended that there are certain apparent mistakes in the impugned Tribunal order dated 06.04.2018.
2. In course of hearing of the M.P., it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that paras 8 to 11 of this M.P. are relevant regarding the assessee's contention that there are apparent mistakes in the impugned Tribunal order. Hence we reproduce paras 8 to 11 of the M.P. filed by the assessee. The same are as under.
"Mistake Apparent from Record
8. This Miscellaneous Application has been necessitated because grave prejudice has been caused against the Applicant, on account of non-consideration of arguments put forth in relation to a comparable i.e. 'Persistent Systems Limited' in the aforementioned impugned M.P. No. 164/Bang/2018 (in IT(TP)A No. 383/Bang/2017) Page 2 of 3 order. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR had placed its arguments before the Hon'ble Tribunal that the Applicant was arguing for exclusion of 'Persistent Systems Limited'. Even the Hon'ble Tribunal in internal page no. 6 of its order dated April o6, 2018, has discussed that 'Persistent Systems Limited' is to be discussed for its exclusion, but has inadvertently discussed Infosys Limited' instead of `Persistent Systems Limited' in internal page nos. 9 to ii. Moreover, the Hon'ble Tribunal has already excluded Infosys Limited' in its order, evident from internal page no. 6 of the order passed dated April o6, 2018.
9. At this juncture, the Applicant would like to submit that a detailed chart was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal which elaborated and explained the facts of the case, the reasons for rejection of the `Persistent Systems Limited'. In addition, a Case Law Compendium was also filed, comprising of the case laws which held that 'Persistent Systems Limited' should not be taken for comparability analysis.
10. Based on all the facts mentioned above and the events as occurred during the course of proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal, the Applicant would like to mention that arguments were taken for excluding 'Persistent Systems Limited' as functionally not comparable to the Applicant. However, the Hon'ble Tribunal has inadvertently not dealt with Applicant's contention.
11. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent from record and therefore, may be called and rectified to the extent discussed above."
3. In the light of these para reproduced from the M.P., when we examine the impugned Tribunal order, we find that in para 5 of the impugned Tribunal order, it is stated by Tribunal that the assessee requested for exclusion of two comparables i.e. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd.
M.P. No. 164/Bang/2018(in IT(TP)A No. 383/Bang/2017) Page 3 of 3 Although the issue regarding exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. was decided by the Tribunal as per para nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned Tribunal order but in Para 8 of impugned Tribunal order, it was held that Infosys Ltd. should be excluded from the list of final comparables and the assessee's request for exclusion of Persistent Systems Ltd. was not decided. Again in Para 9 of the Tribunal order, it is stated that in the final list of comparables for this segment, there will be only two comparables i.e. Mindtree Ltd. and RS Software (India) Ltd. and therefore, as per this finding of Tribunal, Persistent Systems Ltd. also stands excluded although there is no discussion about the exclusion of this company. Hence, we recall the impugned Tribunal order for the limited purpose of deciding the assessee's claim for exclusion of Persistent Systems Ltd. Accordingly we recall the impugned Tribunal order for this limited purpose and direct the Registry to fix the same for hearing in due course.
4. In the result, the M.P. filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.V. VASUDEVAN) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 20th July, 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.