THE ADIT (IT)-1(1), MUMBAI v. M/S. ADITYA VIKARAM GLOBAL TRADING HOUSE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4651/MUM/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 465119914 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AADCA8215D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4651/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant THE ADIT (IT)-1(1), MUMBAI
Respondent M/S. ADITYA VIKARAM GLOBAL TRADING HOUSE LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 19-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 09-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 09-08-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 21-06-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5402/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) ITA NO.5403/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ITA NO.4651/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ADIT(IT) -1(1) ROOM NO.117 SCINDIA HOUSE 1ST FLOOR BALLARD ESTATE N.M. ROAD MUMBAI -400 021 ....... APPELLANT VS ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. C/O. INDINA RAYON INDUSTRIES LTD. 92 SAKHAR BHAVAN 230 NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI -400 021 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AADCA 8215 D APPELLANT BY: SHRI V.V. SHASTRI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.D. MISTRI DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.08.2011 19.08.2011 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR JM: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE IN WH ICH THE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A)-31 MU MBAI FOR THE A.YS. 2001-02 2003-04 & 2004-05 ARE CHALLENGED. THE SOL ITARY COMMON ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY ARISES IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 2 (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN GROSSING-UP THE AMOUNT OF THE WITHHOLDING TAX PAID BY M/S. INDIAN R AYON AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED (IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS INDIAN RAYON) AS PER AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSE TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS A FOREIGN COMPANY WHO HAS ENTERED I NTO AN AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN RAYON AND AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED ROYALTY ON WHICH TAX WAS PAID BY IRIL AS U NDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT OF TAX PAID 2001-01 ` 1 21 40 221/- 2003-04 ` 1 06 51 672/- 2004-05 ` 83 82 359/- 3. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TAX PAID BY INDIAN RAYON IS EXEMPT U/S.10(6A) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TECHNOLOGY COLLABORATION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND INDIAN RAYON IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY A ND WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) WHICH I S A COMPETENT AUTHORITY DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT . IN OPINION OF THE A.O . THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY WITH INDIAN RAYON DOES NOT HAVE ANY LOCUS STANDI AS ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT ARE NOT AS PER THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE CL AUSE (A) TO SECTION 10(6A) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. ALSO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN RAYON IS NOT AS PER THE INDUS TRIAL POLICY FRAMED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND IF IT IS AS PER TH E INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA THEN NO APPROVAL OF THE RBI IS R EQUIRED. THE A.O. THEREFORE GROSSED UP THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE IND IAN COMPANY ON THE ROYALTY PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 3 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CI T (A) AND LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEF IT OF TAX PAID BY INDIAN RAYON OF CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 10(6A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY GROSSING-UP THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX PAID BY THE INDIA N RAYON. WE MAY PREFER TO RE-PRODUCE THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. C IT (A) FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 FOR DELETING THE ADDITION WHICH ARE AS UND ER:- 2.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR AND I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE FACTS. THE A.O. HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE ACTIVITY IN THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT IS NOT AS PER INDUSTRIAL POLICY. HE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE AN Y BASIS FOR SUCH AN ASSERTION. THE AO HAS FURTHER MENTIONED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER MADE ANY APPLICATION NOR SOUG HT ANY APPROVAL FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.10(6A) FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF A PPELLANT IS NOT UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND THE APPROVAL BY RBI IS ALSO NOT EQUIVALENT TO APPROVAL BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THEREFORE CLAIM WAS REJECTED. SECTION 10(6A) O F INCOME- TAX ACT READS AS UNDER:- 10(6A) WHERE IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN COMPANY DERI VING INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERV ICES RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OR AN INDIAN CONCERN IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE BY THE FOREIGN COMPA NY WITH GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN CONCERN AFTER THE 31S T DAY OF MARCH 1976 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2002 [A ND (A) WHERE THE AGREEMENT RELATES TO A MATTER INCLUD ED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SUCH AGREEMENT IS IN ACCORDANC E WITH THAT POLICY ; AND ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 4 (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED B Y THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME IS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERM S OF THE AGREEMENT BY GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN CONCERN TO T HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THE TAX SO PAID. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE AND CL AUSE (6B) (A) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES SHALL HAVE THE S AME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9 ; (B) FOREIGN COMPANY SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN SECTION 80B ; (C) ROYALTY SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN EX PLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9; 2.5. IT IS APPARENT FROM SECTION THAT NO PROCEDURE HA S BEEN DESCRIED FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. ON THE CONTRARY WHEREVE R SPECIFIC APPROVAL IS NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF I.T . ACT IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY SPELT OUT IN THE ACT. FEW EX AMPLES ARE SECTION 10(23G) AND SECTION 35(1)(III) ACT. TH US FOR PURPOSES OF SEC 10(6A) APPROVAL BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE MATTER BEING UNDER INDUSTRIAL POL ICY HAS TO BE EXAMINED. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE MANUFACTURE A ND SALE OF MENS WEAR CLOTHING AND OTHER ACCESSORIES. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEANS TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL ASSISTANCE AND ADVISE RELATING TO THE GOODS AND THE IR DESIGN MANUFACTURE EXPORT MARKETING AND EXPORT PROMOTION. THE RBI HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSAL OF TE CHNICAL COLLABORATION VIDE LETTER DATED 09.03.2000 AFTER PU TTING THE CEILING ON ROYALTY PAYMENT WHICH ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL COLLABORATION AGREEMENT APPROVED BY RBI IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY. CLAUSE-C OF PARA- ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 5 39 (AS EXTRACTED ABOVE) CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR AUTOMA TIC APPROVAL FOR FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENTS FOR THE INDUSTRIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-I II. THE RBI APPROVAL FOR THE REMITTANCE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE IS GIVEN AS PER FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT 1973 (FERA). SECTION-8 OF FERA PROVIDES FOR BAN ON REMI TTANCE OF ANY FOREIGN EXCHANGE OUTSIDE INDIA WITHOUT ANY P REVIOUS GENERAL OR SPECIAL PERMISSION OF THE RBI. IT IS TH EREFORE APPARENT THAT THE RBI APPROVAL DATED 09.03.2000 ISS UED UNDER FERA IS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE THE INDUSTRIAL P OLICY AND ALSO AS PER FERA. SUBSEQUENTLY FEMA WAS INTRODUCED AND CAT RULES 2000 WERE BROUGHT INTO EFF ECT. PARA-4 OF CAT RULES PROVIDES FOR PRIOR APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF CASES MENTIONED IN SCHEDUL E-II. SERIAL NO.8 OF SCHEDULE-II REFERS TO REMITTANCE UND ER TECHNICAL COLLABORATION AGREEMENT WHERE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY EXCEEDS 5% ON TOTAL SALES AND 8% ON EXPORTS AND LUMP SUM PAYMENT EXCEEDS US$ 2MILLION NO APPROVAL OF MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCE IS NEEDED AS PR OVIDED IN SCHEDULE II OF CAT RULES. THE APPROVAL OF SUCH AGREEMENT IS AUTOMATIC. FROM THE PERUSAL OF INDUST RIAL POLICY CAT RULES AND FERA AND THE RBI APPROVAL IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT SATISFIED ALL THE CONDI TIONS ACQUIRED OF SECTION 10(6A) OF THE TECHNICAL ASSISTA NCE AGREEMENT BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL P OLICY AND WHEREVER REQUIRED APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT APPROVAL IS AUTOMATIC AND NO SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE IS NE EDED. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE I.T. ACT FOR APPROVAL U/S.10(6A). I AM THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF TAX PAID BY INDIAN RAYON OF ` 1 06 51 674/- BEING EXEMPT U/S.10(6A). IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY HELD IT TO BE TAXABLE. ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 6 5. NOW THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. COUNSEL TOOK US THROUGH THE F ACTS AS WELL AS THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A). HE SUBMITS THA T THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY CLAUSE (A) TO SEC 10(6A) OF THE ACT. OTHERWISE ALSO IT IS COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (B) TO SEC 10(6A) OF THE ACT AS THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN APPROVAL BY THE RBI. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT B BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VS. KAISAR ALUMINUM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.20 SOT 226 (MUM) H E THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE TAX PAID BY THE INDIAN COMPANY ON THE ROYALTY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GROSSED-UP. WE HAVE ALSO HE ARD THE LD. D.R. 7. SECTION 10(6A) IS ALREADY REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE . THE SAID PROVISION DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHERE IN PURSUANT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN COMPANY OR CONCERN AND THE FOREIGN C OMPANY WHICH DERIVES THE INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TE CHNICAL SERVICES AND ANY TAX IS BORNE BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA OR INDIAN CO NCERN AS PER TERMS OF AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING SUBJECT TO THE FOLLO WING TWO CONDITIONS THE SAME WILL BE EXEMPT:- I) IF THE AGREEMENT RELATE TO THE MATTERS IN CONSONANC E WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA; A ND II) OTHERWISE THE SAID AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE CE NTRAL GOVERNMENT. 8. IN THE CASE OF KAISAR ALUMINUM TECHNICAL SERVICE S INC. (SUPRA) THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(6A) HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND OPERATIVE PART OF FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER:- 17. NOW COMING TO THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE TH AT BOTH THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-SS. (A) AND (B) OF S. 1 0(6A) SHOULD BE ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 7 SATISFIED WE ARE NOT ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE VIEW C ONVASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THIS SECT ION READS AS UNDER: 10(6A) WHERE IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN COMPANY DERI VING INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RE CEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OR AN INDIAN CONCERN IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE BY THE FOREIGN COMPANY WITH GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN CONCERN AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 1976 BUT BEFOR E THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2002 [AND (A) WHERE THE AGREEMENT RELATES TO A MATTER INCLUD ED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SUCH AGREEMENT IS IN ACCORDANC E WITH THAT POLICY ; AND (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED B Y THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME IS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERM S OF THE AGREEMENT BY GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN CONCERN TO T HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THE TAX SO PAID]. READING OF SUB-S.(A) TO S. 10(6A) MAKES IT CLEAR TH AT WHERE THE AGREEMENT RELATES TO A MATTER WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR TIME BEING IN FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SUCH AGREEMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT P OLICY THEN WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR OF ANY ASSESSEE INCOME SPECIFIED ABOVE CANNOT FORM PART O F TOTAL INCOME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT EXPLANATION BY THE GOVERNMENT QUOTED HEREINABOVE VIDE PARA 15 IN SUCH CASES NO SPECIFIC APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL IS AUTOMAT IC. BUT IN ANY OTHER CASE THE AGREEMENT IS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THIS MEANS THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN AN INDIAN ENTREPRENEUR AND FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY SUPPL IER ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 8 GOVERNMENT WILL PROVIDE AUTOMATIC APPROVAL FOR TECH NOLOGY AGREEMENT RELATED TO SUCH HIGH PRIORITY INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PARAMETERS. IF IT IS NOT FALLING WITHIN THAT HIGH PRIORITY INDUSTRY THEN THE AGREEMENT IS SPECIFICALLY TO BE APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH S. 10(6A) (B). 18. IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE SE EN THAT THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THE ENUMERATED LIST OF HIGH P RIORITY INDUSTRIES. AS SUCH WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A0 IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THEREFORE S. 10(6A)(A) SQUARELY APPLIES IN THE INSTANT CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS STIPUL ATED IN S.10(6A) SHOULD APPLY AT THE SAME TIME. BECAUSE IF THAT BE SO THERE WAS NO NEED OF USING THE FOLLOWING WORDS IN S . 10(6A)(B) WHICH READS AS UNDER: IN ANY OTHER CASE THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THIS MEANS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GET APPROVAL IN ALL CASES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S. 10(6A)(A) I.E. AUTOMATIC APPROVAL. ONLY IN CASES THAT FALL WITHIN S.10(6A)(B) APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. HENCE THE APPE AL BY THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND IS WITHOUT MERIT AND DISMISS ED FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION.- 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RECORDE D THAT THE RBI HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSAL OF THE TECHNICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 9.3.2000 AFTER PUTTING THE CEILING ON THE ROYALTY PAYMENT WHICH ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY 1991 CLAUSE- C OF PARA 39 OF THAT POLICY AND THE TECHNICAL COLLABORAT ION AGREEMENT (TCA) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY. THE L D. CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT CLAUSE-C OF PARA 39 CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR AUTOMATIC ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 9 APPROVAL FOR FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENTS FOR THE INDUSTRIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-3. THE RBI APPROV AL IS GIVEN UNDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT 1973 (FE RA) AND IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT THAT THE RBI APPROVAL DATED 9.0 3.2000 ISSUED IN FERA IS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL PO LICY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND ALSO AS PER THE FERA. IN OUR OPINION TH E CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT TECHNICAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND INDIAN RAYON IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. OTHERWIS E ALSO THE SAID AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE RBI. IN OUR OPI NION EVEN IF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SEC. 10(6A) THEN THE SAME CAN ALSO FALL IN CLAUSE (B) AND HENCE TAX PAID BY THE INDIAN COMPANY CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY ALL THE ORDERS CH ALLENGED OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR THE A.YS. BEFORE US ARE CONFIRMED. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT HE IS INVOKING THE RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL RULES 1962 TO SUPPORT THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE OF THE REOPENING MORE PARTICULARL Y IN THE A.Y. 2001- 02. WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS A.Y. 2001-02 IS CONCERN ED THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) CHALLENGIN G THE VALIDITY ISSUE U/S.148. THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GR OUND BY GIVING REASON THAT AS RELIEF IS GIVEN ON MERIT OF THE ISS UE HENCE THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S.148 HAS BECOME ACADE MIC. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION RULE 27 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE PR ESENT CASE AS NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) O N THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT HIS PLEA FOR INVOKING RULE 27 OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES. 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 10 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 9TH AUGUST 2011. SD/- SD/- ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 19TH AUGUST 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)31 MUMBAI. 4) THE DIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE-1 MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. H BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 5402/MUM/2007 ITA 5403/MUM/2007 ITA 4651/MUM/2007 ADITYA VIKRAM GLOBAL HOUSE LTD. 11 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.08.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.08.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER