FMC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1529/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 January 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order regarding the Lithium Segment to be cryptic. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee pressed only grounds related to the Lithium Segment, as other grounds were not pressed or were found to be non-existent.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the cryptic nature of the CIT(A)'s order concerning the Lithium Segment, requiring a fresh adjudication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

For Appellant: Shri Pradhan Dass, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT DR
Hearing: 25.11.2019Pronounced: 10.01.2020

BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM IT (TP) A No. 1529/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2009 – 10 M/s FMC India Pvt. Ltd., Embassy Star, 8, Palace Road, vs. DCIT, Circle – 11 (3), High Grounds, Bangalore Bangalore – 560052. PAN: AAACF4579N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Pradhan Dass, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 O R D E R

PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of CIT(A) – IV Bangalore dated 30.09.2014 for A. Y. 2009 – 10.

2.

In course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that only grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are pressed and he has mentioned so in the body of grounds and signed. Accordingly, remaining grounds and additional grounds are rejected as not pressed. It was pointed out by the bench that there is no ground No. 3 because after Ground No. 2, there is Ground No. 4. The bench also pointed out that in Ground No. 4, the grievances are about Research & Development Segment and that in Ground No. 5, the grievances are about Lithium Segment but learned AR of the assesse did not advance any argument regarding Research & (B)/2014 Page 2 of 3 Development Segment and hence, it is inferred that Ground No. 4 is also not pressed and since, there is no ground no. 3, we are required to decide only Ground No. 5 regarding Lithium Segment. Regarding this segment, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assesse that in Para 8 to 8.9, learned CIT (A) has decided about the grievances of the assesse in respect of this segment and his decision is cryptic and therefore, the issue about this segment should be restored to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). 3. We have considered rival submissions and we proceed to decide Ground No. 5 and reject all other grounds including additional grounds as not pressed. Ground No. 5 is about Lithium Segment for which, we find that the order of CIT (A) is cryptic and therefore, we set aside the order of CIT (A) about this segment and restore the matter about this segment to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, the 10th January, 2020. /NS/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →