Golkonda Aluminium Extrusions Ltd.,(formerly known as Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd.), Medak Dt, Hyderabad v. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 53/HYD/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5322524 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AABCP7715M
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number MA 53/HYD/2016
Duration Of Justice 16 day(s)
Appellant Golkonda Aluminium Extrusions Ltd.,(formerly known as Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd.), Medak Dt, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyd, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 14-09-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 53/HYD/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1929/HYD/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. GOLKONDA ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LIMITED) HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCP7715M] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(4) HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P.V.S.S. PRASAD AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. U. MINICHANDRAN DR DATE OF HEARING : 23-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-09-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 1929/HYD/2014 DT. 29-04-2016. AS SESSEE HAS RAISED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATING AS UNDER: 7. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE APPELLAN T PRAYS THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY TH E MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AS CPM FOR SALE OF FINISHED GOODS (ACCORDING TO THE DRP ORDER AND 2 M.A. NO. 53/HYD/2016 AS HELD BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR) INSTEAD OF CUP METHOD AS MENTIONED IN THE OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH 4 5 & 6 OF ITS ORDER. 8. FURTHER AS REGARDS TO THE CONTRADICTORY GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS MENTIONED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUN AL IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF ITS ORDER WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE GROU ND NO. 2 & 3 WERE RAISED TO SUBSTANTIATE CUP METHOD TO BE MOST APPROP RIATE METHOD FOR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL AND GROUND NO. 4 WAS RAISE D IN CONNECTION WITH CPM BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR SALE OF F INISHED GOODS AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN THE GROUND S RAISED. 9. IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT TO THIS EXTENT AND HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO RECTIFY THE ABOVE MISTAKE BY PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER. 2. LD. COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF ITAT IN AY. 2006-07 NOTED THAT ITAT APPROVED CPM FOR SALE OF EXPORTS AND IN EARLIER YEARS ONLY TP ADJUSTMENTS WERE DONE FOR EXPORTS ONLY. IN THIS YEAR HOWEVER AO ALSO CONSIDERED RAW-MATERIAL FOR CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT CUP METHOD TO BE MOS T APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR PURCHASE OF RAW-MATERIAL. IN TH IS CONTEXT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 TO SUBSTANTIATE C UP METHOD AND GROUND NO. 4 WAS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF FINISHED GOODS WITH CPM BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE METH OD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN MENTIONING CUP METHOD IN PARA 4 OF THE ITAT ORDER AND THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN GROUNDS AS NOTED IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER. LD. COUNSEL REQUEST ED FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER. 3. LD. DR WHILE ADMITTING THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME MISTAKES HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS CPM WAS 3 M.A. NO. 53/HYD/2016 CONSIDERED AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR SALE OF EXPO RTS AND NOT SALE OF FINISHED GOODS AS CONTENDED BY ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION AND RIVAL CONTEN TIONS. WE ADMIT THAT THERE OCCURRED A MISTAKE IN DIRECTING TO ADO PT CUP METHOD AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD IN PARA 4. ACTUALLY TH E DRP HAS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ITAT ORDER AND THE DIRECTION S GIVEN IN AY. 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 IN THIS YEA R ALSO. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE TPO TO FOLLOW THE CPM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR SALE OF EXPORTS AS IN EARLIER Y EARS. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP AND AD OPTED TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD THE GROUNDS WERE NOT ADJUDICATED. MODIFYING THE METHOD SPECIFIED IN PARA 4 WE DIRECT THE AO/TPO TO CONSIDER CUP METHOD TO BE THE MOST APPROPRI ATE METHOD FOR PURCHASE OF RAW-MATERIAL AND CPM BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR SALE OF EXPORTS AS IN EARLIER YEARS. WE ALSO WITHDRAW OUR OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 5 AS THESE GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. 5. PARA 6 IS MODIFIED AS UNDER: 6. THEREFORE THIS FORUM CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CONTENTI ONS OF ASSESSEE EITHER WAY AS THE DRP HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED AND DIRECTED THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT GI VEN IN EARLIER YEARS AND IN THIS YEAR ALSO. IT IS MANDATORY THAT AO HAS TO FOLLOW THE DRPS DIRECTIONS. AS ALREADY STATED AO DID NO T FOLLOW THE METHOD DIRECTED BY THE DRP. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DI RECT THE AO TO PASS THE ORDERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS T O THE EXTENT OF SALE OF GOODS AS IN EARLIER YEARS AND CONSIDER CUP METHOD FOR PURCHASE OF RAW-MATERIAL. ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS AND ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNIT Y. HOWEVER WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS FREE TO RAISE THE ISSUES IN CASE IT 4 M.A. NO. 53/HYD/2016 IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF AO/TPO. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS THE ORDER OF AO DT. 30-10-2014 IS SET ASIDE AND ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO TO DO IT AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT AND DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP/ITAT ON THE ISSUE. 6. THE ORDER OF ITAT DT.29-04-16 STANDS MODIFIED ACCO RDINGLY. IN THE RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. M/S. GOLKONDA ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION LIMITED (FORM ERLY KNOWN AS ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LIMITED) KALLAKAL VILLAGE TOOPRAN MANDAL MEDAK DISTRICT. C/O. PRASA D & PRASAD CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FLAT NO. 301 MJ TOWE RS 8-2-698 ROAD NO. 12 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(4) HYDERABAD. 3. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) HYDERABAD. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATI ON INCOME TAX TOWERS HYDERABAD. 5. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER P RICING) HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE.