9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and 2016-17, the name of the assessee has been mentioned inadvertently as - "M/s Vodafone South Limited (VSL - Hyd)" instead of mentioning the name of the assessee as - M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. It is also observed from the proposal of the Assessing Officer that the demand raised for both these Assessment Years are as under- Assessment Year Demand raised Order under Sec. & Date of order 2015-16 Rs. 2,09,61,635 201(1) & 201(1A) & 27-02-2017 2016-17 Rs. 3,84,16,393 201(1) & 201(1A) & 27-02-2017 It has been submitted by the Assessing Officer in his proposal that as the mentioning of wrong name in the order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as pointed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer and the JCIT, TDS Range - 2, Hyderabad have submitted that the orders under sec.201(1) & 201(1A) passed for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17, are required to be revised under Sec.263 of the I T Act, 1961 in order to protect the interest of revenue. 2.2 It is also important to mention here that before submitting the proposals for Revision under Sec.263, the Assessing Officer has passed a Corrigendum on 22-012018 rectifying the name of the company to M/s Vodafone Mobile S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther in the case, it is important to discuss here as to why the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The following course of actions of the Assessing Officer and the observations of the Hon'ble ITAT goes to prove that the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue - 1. The Assessing Officer while passing the order under Sec.201(1) & 201(1A) dated 27-02-2017 has mentioned the name of the assessee as M/s Vodafone South Limited (VSL - Hyd) in the said orders, which company got merged with Mis Vodafone Mobile Services Limited w.e.f 01-04-2014 as per the scheme of merger approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta, Madras & Delhi High Courts; 2. Thus, the name of the company mentioned in the orders dated 27- 02-2017 passed under sec.201(1) & 201(1A) on a subsequent date of merger is erroneous in the light of the fact that the name mentioned in the order is non-existent; 3. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal while disposing off the Stay Application of the assessee in S A Nos. 3 & 4/H/2018 (in ITA Nos.40 & 41/H/18) dated 24-012018 at para - 5 of its order has held as under- "5. Considering the rival submissions and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore CIT (A) regarding wrong mention of the name in the Assessment Order; iii. It has raised this ground only when it filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the order passed by the AO in the name of a non-existent company is null and void and needs to be quashed; 6.2 The assessee company raised this ground only before the Hon'ble Tribunal that the order passed by the AO quoting the name of a company which got merged company as null and void, despite the fact that a corrigendum has already been passed correcting the name quoted in the orders passed under Sec 201(1) & 201(1A) of the I T Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17. This depicts the intention and attitude of the assessee company to get rid of a huge demand of Rs. 2,09,61,635/- & Rs. 3,84,16,393/- for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016- 17 respectively making an attempt to project the clerical mistake of quoting a wrong name as a mistake which has no remedial action and magnify the issue to such an extent, that the appellate authorities may feel that the action of the Assessing Officer has no remedy and needs to be disqualified. However, in my opinion, the following aspects support the fact that the error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal mistake and could be corrected under Sec.292B of the I T Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has corrected the order by passing a Corrigendum dated 22- 01-2018 to the orders passed under Sec.201(1) & 201(1A) dated 27- 02-2017. The Hon'ble ITAT placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee and the issue has been decided in favour of Revenue; 1. Simultaneously, as an abundant precaution, the AO has also proposed Revision under sec.263 of the I T Act, 1961 ; Thus, from the above analysis, it can be understood that the mistake in the order is only a clerical error and can be rectified. 6.3 Mere quoting of wrong name cannot be considered for disqualifying the entire order. Therefore, keeping in mind the conduct of the assessee company and in order to protect the interest of revenue since the orders passed under Sec.201 (1) & 201(1A) for the AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 involve huge demands, as an abundant precaution, to protect the interest of revenue, I am of the opinion that the orders passed under Sec.201 (1) & 201 (1A) are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and needs to be revised under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
