GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL ADD/JCIT (A)-1, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1312/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 February 2025AY 2001-02Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1312/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Vs Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited 252 GSK House Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli Mumbai - 400030 [PAN: AAACG4414B] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anish 1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to a mistaken identity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Addl./JCIT(A) to be considered on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam, which confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. The grounds of appeal included violation of natural justice and non-consideration of submissions. A key issue was the dismissal of the appeal as infructuous due to a mistaken identity related to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was correctly dismissed as infructuous due to a mistaken identity, and if not, whether it should be restored for proper consideration after affording an opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 153,Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar, A/R
Hearing: 18/02/2025Pronounced: 18/02/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)] dated 25/01/2024, pertaining to AY 2001-02.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “The Appellant objects to the order, dated 25 January 2024, passed by the learned Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax - (Appeals) - 1, Visakhapatnam ['learned CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) confirming the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act dated 13 March 2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 7(1)(1), Mumbai (learned AO') on the following grounds of appeal, which are independent and without prejudice to one another: On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A): Ground of Appeal No. 1: Opportunity of being heard not granted

1.

erred in disposing-off the appeal ex-parte without granting any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and thereby violating the violating the principles of natural justice; Ground of Appeal

No. 2: Submission filed but not taken into consideration 2. erred in holding that no compliance was made by the Appellant for the hearing notice despite the fact that written submission dated

8. December 2023 was already e-filed by the Appellant in response to hearing notice dated

23. November 2023 issued under section 250 of the Act; Ground of Appeal No. 3: Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VSV') application not filed by Appellant for the proceedings in case of Appellant but in case of merged entity, Burroughs Welcome India Limited ('BWIL'") 3. failed to appreciate that the application under the VSV Scheme was filed in relation to appeal against 143(3) read with section 254 (appeal no. 10463/2016-17) filed for Burroughs Welcome India Limited for AY 2001-02, which had merged with the Appellant company and not in relaion to the Appellant's appeal; Ground of Appeal No. 4: Order giving effect to the Hon'ble Tribunal's order is barred by limitation 4. failed to appreciate that the order giving effect dated

13. March 2020 to the Hon'ble Tribunal's order is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act; Ground of Appeal No. 5: Relief granted by Tribunal in respect of closing balance of advance license not considered 5. erred in not directing the learned AO to follow the Hon'ble Tribunal's directions and reduce the closing balance of advance license of INR 8,19,19,078 while computing the total income on giving effect to the Tribunal order; Ground of Appeal No. 6-7: Reduction of tax base due to Appellant 6. erred in not appreciating that the learned AO, while calculating the principal amount of tax refund due to the Appellant, erred in reducing the amount of refund already granted including the interest under section 244A already granted entirely against the principal component; 7. ought to have directed the learned AO to first adjust the refund granted against interest payable to the Appellant and balance, if any, against the principal component; Ground of Appeal No. 8-9: Short grant of interest under section 244A of the Act 8. erred in not directing to grant interest under section 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt/ adjustment of refund; 9. without prejudice to the above, ought to have directed the learned AO to grant compensatory interest for inordinate delay in grant of the amount of refund including unpaid interest under section 244A of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute the above grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds at any time before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal.”

More judgments on Section 153

All 1,265 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →