Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Sony Pictures Networks India P. Ltd ( ... vs Asst Cit 12(3)(2), Mumbai on 14 March, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
MA No.731/Mum/2018
(Arising out of ITA No. 1935/Mum/2017)
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
Sony Pictures Networks India ASST. CIT-12(3)(2)
Pvt.Ltd Room No.147B, 1st Floor
(Successor of MSM Discovery Pvt.Ltd) Aaykar Bhawan,
Interface Building No.7 M.K.Road,Churchgate
4th Floor, Malad Link Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020
Malad(W),Mumbai-400 064
PAN/GIR No. AAGCS4253E
(Appellant) : (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Nishant Takkar &
Ms. Jasmine
Respondent by : Shri Nishant Samaiya
Date of Hearing : 08/03/2019
Date of Pronouncement : 14/03/2019
ORDER
Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
By way of this miscellaneous application, the assessee seeks recall of the order of this tribunal in ITA No.1935/Mum/2017 vide order dated
02.05.2018.
2. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee Shri Nishant Thakkar submitted that in the aforesaid order the ITAT had remitted the matter to the file of the AO for 2 MA N o. 7 3 1 / M um / 2 0 1 8 S o ny Pi c t u re s N e t w o rk I n di a P v t. Lt d.
adjudicating the issues following order of ITAT in assessee's own case in earlier year for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 26.07.2017.
3. Ld. Counsel submitted that all the facts needed for adjudicating the issue were available before the ITAT as they were also available before the ITAT in the earlier year when it remanded the matter. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee had filed a miscellaneous application for recall of the earlier date 26/07/2017. But the same was rejected. However, Ld. Counsel submitted that vide order dated 03.01.2019, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has reversed the miscellaneous application order of the ITAT and has held that when all the facts were available the ITAT should have decided the issue itself. Hence Ld. Counsel of the assessee pleaded that following the above jurisdictional High Court decision this order of the ITAT should also be recalled and the matter should be adjudicated by the ITAT itself. Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the precedence in this regard is there in the decision of Delhi High Court in Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs. CIT (22taxmann.com 300) wherein on similar propositions that recall of the order was approved by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. Upon careful consideration we find considerable cogency in the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. As the order of the ITAT which was followed by the ITAT in the present order has been directed by the Hon'ble Judicial High Court to be heard afresh by the ITAT for the 3 MA N o. 7 3 1 / M um / 2 0 1 8 S o ny Pi c t u re s N e t w o rk I n di a P v t. Lt d.
adjudication on the issue, respectfully following the above we also recall this order of the ITAT dated 02.05.2018
5. The registry is directed to fix the case for hearing on the same date on which the earlier appeal for AY 2011-12 is fixed pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Honourable jurisdictional High Court.
6. Ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed with the above proposition.
7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amarjit Singh) (Shamim Yahya)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai; Dated : 14.03.2019
Thirumalesh, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT - concerned
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai