Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
आदेश/O R D E R
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad, (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 22.03.2016 arising in the assessment order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12.
[Erhardt + Leimer (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 -
The grounds of appeal raised by assessee read hereunder:
“1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad grossly erred in retaining/confirming the disallowance of made by the AO on account of upward adjustment in respect of transactions with associated enterprises. 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals}-2, Ahmedabad grossly erred in retaining/confirming the disallowance by adopting the amount of discount allowed in bulk purchases at 5% as against the appellant's claim that such discount amounted to 15%. It is therefore prayed that while determining the Arm Length Price computed under Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method in respect of sale of Cloth Guider, the adjustment in respect of discount on bulk volume purchases be allowed/granted at 15% as claimed by the appellant against 5% adopted by the learned CIT (A). 1.3 It is submitted that the transactions of sale of Cloth Guiders made by the company with its AE have been made at ALP computed in accordance with the regulations provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with applicable rules as provided in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and therefore, the adjustment of Rs.19,03,590/- which was wrongly made by the AO and confirmed/retained by the CIT(A) is required to be deleted to the extent mentioned in 1.2 above. It is therefore, prayed that the addition/disallowance retained/confirmed by the CIT (A) may please be deleted."
When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that identical issue involved in the captioned appeal has come up before the Tribunal in AY 2010-11 as well. The ITAT in AY 2010-11 in order dated 06.02.2017 has set aside all the issues involved back to the file of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
There being no disparity in facts pointed out either on behalf of the assessee or on behalf of the Revenue, we follow the decision taken by the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 and restore the issues involved in the present appeal to the TPO in parity [Erhardt + Leimer (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - for deciding afresh according to the directions issued by the co- ordinate bench of ITAT in AY 2010-11 which in turn has relied upon the decision in AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 therein.
The TPO shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to evaluate the possibility of appropriate adjustments, if any, in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/06/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 28/06/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।