Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Ltu, ... on 18 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH ' C '
BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI
LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.P. Nos.89 & 90/Bang/2018
(In I.T. A. Nos.1195/Bang/2014 & 474/Bang/2016)
(Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)
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.
Respondent By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Date of Hearing : 18.05.2018.
Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2018.
O R D E R
Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. :
These Misc. Petitions are filed by the assessee company seeking the rectification of the order 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/2018 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 jurisdictional 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 the petitioner could not point out any specific submissions made by the assessee during the course of hearing of appeal and not considered 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 after 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 payees are clearly identified. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal are based on the facts brought on record. Under 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/2018 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 dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th day of May, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(LALIET KUMAR) (INTURI RAMA RAO)
Judicial Member 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
Senior Private Secretary
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Bangalore.