ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI v. TECH MAHINDRA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAHINDRA BRITISH TELECOM LTD), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR (JM ) ITA NO. 3031/MUM/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03) ACIT-2(3) APPELLANT R.NO. 555 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI V/S. M/S. TECH MAHINDRA LTD. RESPONDENT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAHINDRA BRITISH TELECOM LTD.) GATEWAY BUILDING APOLLO BUNDER MUMBAI 400 001 PAN : AAACM3484F APPELLANT BY :MR. HEMANT J. LAL RESPONDENT BY :MR. H.P. MAHAJAN (D.R) : O R D E R : PER R.S. PADVEKAR J.M THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)- XXX MUMBAI DATED 13.2.2009 FOR THE A. Y. 2002-03 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W .S. 263 OF THE I T ACT 1961 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE HONBLE ITATS ORDER DATED 29/08/2008 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER U/S . 263 OF THE I T ACT PASSED BY THE CIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAI D ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE A ND APPEAL U/S. 260A HAS BEEN FILED. 2. THE FACTS WHICH REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UN DER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED SERVICES. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) V IDE ORDER DT. 30.11.2004. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LD CIT II MUMBAI EVOKED SECTI ON 263 OF THE I.T. ACT BY PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SAID SECTION DT. 30.3.2007 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.3031/MUM/2009 2 ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE A.O TO RE-ASSESS AS PER THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE SAID ORDER. THE A.O. CO MPLIED WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT- II MUMBAI WHICH WERE GIVEN IN HIS ORDE R U/SEC. 263 AND PASSED THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 17.12.2007. THE ASSE SSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT II MUMBAI U/SEC. 263(3 ) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEING APPEAL ITA NO. 3657/MUM/2007 AND VIDE ORDER D T. 29.8.2008 THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT MUMBAI PASSED U/S. 263 AND RESTORED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S . 143(3). AS THE VERY BASIS I.E. THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 HAS BEEN CANCE LLED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AS PER THE DIRECTION GIVEN IN THE SAID ORDER HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN OUR OPINION THE LD CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FILED THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL O RDER IN ASSESSEES CASE BEING ITA NO. 3657/MUM/2007 DT. 29.8.2008 WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID ORDER AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT MUMBAI PASSED U/S. 263 AND RES TORED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S. 143(3). 4. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ON THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. :US COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3.THE CIT(A)- XXX MUMBAI 4.THE CIT -2 MUMBAI ITA NO.3031/MUM/2009 3 5.THE DR E BENCH MUMBAI 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT..REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI. ITA NO.3031/MUM/2009 4 US DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 7/4/10 --------------- SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 8/4/10 --------- ----- SR.P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED ----------- ---------- --- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED ----------- ----------- -- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO ----------- ------------ - SR.P.S. THE SR. P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON --------- ----------- -- SR.P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK --------- --------- ---- SR.P.S. 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ------- --------- ---- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER --------- --------- ----