Ita/290/2022 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd

Digitally signedby BHARATHI SLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:40053-DB ITA No. 290 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, OF INCOME-TAX, 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVIRAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SWISS RE GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40053-DB (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SWISS RE SHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,) 2 TO 5 FLOOR, FAIRWINDS BUILDING, EMBASSY GOLF LINKS BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 071 PAN- …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30/12/2021 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.290/BANG/ 2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri. Raviraj.Y.V. along with Sri. M.Dilip, learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue and Sri. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.290/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature as the Tribunal has quashed the order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer by holding that same is barred by limitation and as such Transfer Pricing adjustment cannot be made without appreciating the fact that the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed before 30/1/2014 and was dispatched on 30/1/2014 and date mentioned as 31/1/2014 (6) It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in not remanding the matter to first appellate authority or Dispute Resolution Panel to determine the date of order of passed by Transfer Pricing Officer"? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in law in not remanding the matter to first appellate authority or Dispute Resolution Panel to determine the date of order of passed by Transfer Pricing Officer"? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in ignoring that the typographical mistake committed by Transfer Pricing Officer is curable defect and same can be rectified under section 292B of the Act"? 4. "Whether the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that draft order was sent for approval to DIT(TP) on 16/1/2014 itself and the approval was received in the Office of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) on 29/1/2014 and Transfer Pricing Officer has also reported that date mentioned in transfer pricing order is due to typographical mistake which was inadvertently typed as 31/1/2014 which is evidenced by dispatch stamp of the O/ Additional (TP)-III, Bengaluru"? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in ignoring that the typographical mistake committed by Transfer Pricing Officer is curable defect and same can be rectified under section 292B of the Act"? 4. "Whether the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that draft order was sent for approval to DIT(TP) on 16/1/2014 itself and the approval was received in the Office of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) on 29/1/2014 and Transfer Pricing Officer has also reported that date mentioned in transfer pricing order is due to typographical mistake which was inadvertently typed as 31/1/2014 which is evidenced by dispatch stamp of the O/ Additional (TP)-III, Bengaluru"? 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SMJ