Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Cadila Health Care Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 May, 2012
MA Nos.228,229,230 & 231/Ahd/2010 1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH,AHMEDABAD
(Before Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, J.M. and
Shri A.Mohan Alankamony, A.M. )
MA Nos. 228,229,230 &231/Ahd/2010
(Arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 3052,3053,3054 & 3055/Ahd/2004)
(AYs: 1996-97,1997-98,1998-99 & 1999-2000)
ACIT, Circle-I, Ahmedabad Vs. Cadila Health Care Ltd,
Ahmedabad Zydus Tower
Opp.Iskon Temple
Satellite Cross Road, Ahmedabad
PAN: AAACC6253G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
On behalf of the Assessee Shri Mukesh M. Patel. A.R.
On behalf of the Revenue Shri S.P.Talati Sr. D.R.
Date of hearing : 25-05-2012
Date of Pronouncement : 8/6/12
आदे श)/ORDER
(आदे These four miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the Revenue in identical manner dated 25-10-2010 arising from a common order of the Tribunal dated 12-09-2008. Almost in an alike worded petitions, the Revenue has raised the following grievance:-
1.1 "On perusal of the order dated 12th September, 2008, it is noticed that the in para-5 of the aforesaid order it has been mentioned that "In view of the Id. Dr. having not pressed even the admission of additional grounds, the same are rejected as such".
1.2 In this regard, it is to submit that the department has filed additional grounds of appeal vide this office letter No. ACIT(ODS)/R-1/ITAT/08-09 dtd. 7.4.2008. This fact was mentioned in para 2.1 of the ITAT's order dtd.12..9.2008.MA Nos.228,229,230 & 231/Ahd/2010 2
1.3 Further, the CIT(ITAT)-V, Ahmedabad in its letter dated 23.3.2009 has communicated that;
"The observation of the ITAT at para 5 and 19 of the order that the DR did not press the admission of the additional grounds is factually incorrect."
1.4 In view of the above facts, it is prayed that, Hon'ble ITAT rectify the mistake apparent from the record in the order for A.Y. 1996-97 and admit the additional grounds taken by the Revenue and adjudicate on them. 2.1 Further, in the above referred letter dated 23.3.2009 of the CIT(ITAT)-V, Ahmedabad has further pointed out in para-2 as under:-
Further, I May also invite your attention to para 13 of the ITAT's order, wherein reference was made to order u/s. 154 and page No. 44 of assessee's paper book. As seen from the paper book filed for A.Y. 1996-97 there is no such order. Page No. 44 of the paper book contains order book u/s 154 pertaining to A.Y. 2003-04 and not for A.Y. 1996-97. This error crept into para 21 of the order (pertaining to A.Y. 1997-98), para 30 (pertaining to A.Y. 1999-00) and para 33 ( pertaining to A.Y.2000-
01), also as the ITAT followed its order for A.Y. 1996-97."
2.2 In view of the above facts, attention is invited to para 13 of theITAT's order for A.Y. 1996-97, wherein reference was made to order u/s. 154 and page No. 44 of assessee's paper book. As seen from the paper book filed for A.Y. 1996-97 there is no such order. Page No. 44 of the paper book contains order u/s. 154 pertaining to A.Y. 2003-04 and not for A.Y. 1996-97. 2.3 Since, this is a mistake apparent form record which has crept in the order for A.Y.1996-97, it is requested that the same may kindly be rectified".
2. From the side of the Revenue learned Sr. DR Mr. S.P. Talati appeared and informed that it was incorrect on the part of the Tribunal to comment that the learned D.R. was not interested to press additional ground through which the quashing of the reopening of the assessment was challenged. Learned D.R. drew our attention on a communication dated 26-02-2008, i.e. a letter of CIT ITAT, Ahmedabad addressed to ACIT, Circle-I Ahmedabad Circle through which the raising of an additional ground was suggested. Once it was suggested by D.R. himself then there was no question of not agitating that ground before the respected Tribunal. An another question MA Nos.228,229,230 & 231/Ahd/2010 3 was that there was not a wrong reference of a factual issue and because of that reference the Tribunal has committed an error.
3. From the side of the respondent Mr. Mukesh M. Patel, A.R. appeared. He has pointed out that vide para 13 of the Tribunal the actual issue has duly been considered. The Revenue is unnecessarily raising this point although the same had duly been considered by the Tribunal in the following manner.
"13. Without prejudice to above, so far as merits of the case are concerned, the assessee's case is that it has not transferred the benefits of DEPB license to any party, rather had used the same for house consumption, there is no question of disturbing the order of the CIT(Appeals). In support of these submissions, the Id. DR drew our attention towards order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act dated 16/04/2007(copy placed at NO. 44 of the assessee's paper-book), whereas the Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this point, after making verification of the assessee's claim that DEPB licenses were not transferred in any manner and no profit was derived for the same. The specific observations of the Assessing Officer as contained in paragraph No. 1 of the order u/s. 154(supra), read as under:-
"as the CIT(A) has in his appellate order directed to grant the deduction after verification of whether DEPB license received by the company were not transferred in any matter and no profit was derived from the same. A letter requesting the assessee for furnishing details of the above was issued on 04- 04-2007."
14.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was quite justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim after making verification as has been referred to in this order. Consequently, on merits also the Revenue appeal fails:"
4. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we find no force in this miscellaneous petition of the Revenue. Prima facie it appears that there MA Nos.228,229,230 & 231/Ahd/2010 4 should not be any grievance to the revenue specially when vide para 13 the Tribunal has restored the issue back to AO only to allow the assessee's claim after making verification. The reason assigned in this miscellaneous petition therefore is incorrect and on that basis no rectification is warranted. As far as the raising of an additional ground is concerned, even in this regard, no evidence is on record that the Revenue has in fact raised additional ground before the Tribunal. Revenue has merely relied upon their internal correspondence and on that basis it is not justifiable to hold that an additional ground in fact has been raised from the side of the Revenue. Since the Revenue has not satisfied us about the raising of the additional ground therefore, it does not matter whether the DR has contested or not. Due to these reasons, we hereby hold that no mistake, what to say an apparent mistake, was committed by the Tribunal. Hence all the petitions of the Revenue being identical in nature are hereby dismissed.
5. In the result, all the four Miscellaneous applications are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ए.मोहन अलंकामणी) (मुकुल कुमार ौावत)
लेखा सदःय Ûयाियक सदःय
( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 08/ 06 /2012
A.kumar/
टȣ.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
MA Nos.228,229,230 & 231/Ahd/2010 5
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant
2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-concerned
5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप/सहायक आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation.......................01.06.12 / 04.06.12 (by ashish kr.,ps)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 01.06.12 / 04.06.12.................. Other Member.....................
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.........8.6.12
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk..................... 8.6.12
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..................................
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
9. Date of Despatch of the Order..................