Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 4(2) (‘AO’) in I.T.N.S -65 vide order dated 03.10.2017 in pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’),Bengaluru under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in F.No.373/DRP- 2/BANG/2016-17 dated 25.09.2017 for assessment year 2013-14.
Mr.R.Vijay represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vara represented on behalf of the Revenue.
At the time of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted a written application stating as follows:- “ITA No.3028/chny./2017 “This is in connection with the captioned appeal under 253 of the Act against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (‘DCIT’), Corporate Circle 4(2) for the subject Assessment Year 2013-14. The hearing in relation to the said appeal has been posted on 31 October 2018.
In this regard, the Appellant submits that it had filed a writ petition before the Honorable High Court of Madras on 11 October 2017, challenging the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the consequential assessment order passed by the DCIT. The Petition was admitted by the Honorable Madras High Court vide interim order 13 October 2017, and the final hearing was on 28 September, 2018.
The Honorable High Court has accepted the contentions of the Appellant and has set aside the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the consequential assessment order of the DCIT. The Honorable High Court has directed the Dispute Resolution Panel to consider the Objections filed by the Appellant and pass fresh directions. The extract of the order of the Honorable High Court is as below (in W.P. 26815 of 2017):
“9. Therefore, this Court is fully convinced that the matter has to go back to the first respondent for consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner in detail and to pass afresh order on merits and in accordance with law with reasons and independent findings. Only when such a speaking order is passed by the 1st respondent, the Assessing Officer will be in a position to pass the consequential order of assessment. Since this Court is satisfied to set aside the order of the first respondent, the consequential order passed by the second respondent in W.P.No.26815/201 7 is also liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for considering the objections raised by the petitioner in detail and pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law by giving independent reasons and findings. It is made clear once again that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner or the findings rendered by the Transfer Pricing Officer, as it is for the first respondent to consider and decide.”
Copy of the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is enclosed as Annexure 1. Considering that the final Assessment Order dated 3 October 2017 has been set aside, the above appeal filed by the Appellant becomes infructuous. Hence, the Appellant requests your Honors to take the same into consideration and accordingly, dispose the case. Yours faithfully, For Nissan Motor India Private Limited”
It was further submitted by ld.A.R that consequently the assessee wishes to withdraw its appeal.
3. Ld. DR has no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee. After hearing both parties, the appeal filed by the assessee is permitted to be withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 31st October, 2018, at Chennai.