ROCKWELL COLLINS (INDIA) ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 340/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited. Bangalore Vs. Income Tax [PAN : AADCR7773H] Circle-3(1) Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Sri Nageswar Rao, Ld.AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 05/08/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 27/08/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 08/02/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Private Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017- 18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee only withdrew the appeal partially that too except grounds No. 9

to 11 inadvertently. The Ld.CIT(A) recorded that the assessee withdrew the entire appeal and hence, dismissed the appeal in toto. 3. Though the Ld.DR placed reliance on the impugned order, it is evident from the impugned order that the assessee did not withdraw the appeal in its entirety. For the sake of completeness, we extract the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) and extracted by the Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of relevance here under :

“…. …. …. ….. …… …… ….. ….. …… …… The Company is in agreement with the resolution reached and hence, would like to partially withdraw the appeal filed before your Honours for A.Y.2017-18 except to the extent pertaining to the grounds of objections (Ground No.9 to 11) raised against the transfer pricing adjustment towards payment for share / support services which are not covered in the resolution under MAP for A.Y.2017-18.” 4. The observations of the Ld.CIT(A) for dismissal of the appeal are hereunder : “5. Decision “ I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The appellant has requested for withdrawal of appeal vide letter dated 16.12.2022. Considering the facts and circumstances, I confirm the disallowance made by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi by order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dated 24.05.2021. The appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed.” 5. It is, therefore, clear from the above that though the Ld.CIT(A) recorded the submission of the assessee as to their desire to withdraw the appeal except to grounds No.9 to 11, it missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A) and resulted in dismissal of the entire appeal. Since it is purely a mistake apparent on record, we set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to grounds No.9 to 11 and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for passing the order in accordance with the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act on grounds No.9 to 11.

Page 2 of 4

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 27/08/2024

Page 3 of 4