TOPBAND INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT (CIRCLE 8), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2543/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 June 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence was not filed before the AO/TPO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, directing them to consider the additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, and the TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 6,39,87,098/-. The assessee claimed that the comparables used by the TPO were operating at full capacity, unlike the assessee, and sought to submit additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence, not filed before the lower authorities, can be admitted and considered for fresh adjudication by the AO/TPO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 144C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Ranbhise
For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (AO), passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 on 07-10- 2024, emanating from the Order of CIT(DRP-3), Mumbai-1, u/s 144C(5) the Act, dated 24-09-2024. 2. In this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 14-02-2022, declaring total loss of Rs. (-)10,51,18,562/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. Assessee is in the business manufacturing, buying, selling, assembling and trading. Reference was made by the AO to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with its Associated Enterprise (AE). The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 6,39,87,098/-. Assessee preferred an appeal before the DRP, who passed the order u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 2 24-09-2024. Then, the AO passed the assessment order, giving effect to the directions of the DRP. It was pleaded by the Ld.AR that assessee had not utilized its full capacity whereas the comparables selected by the TPO were using full capacity. Ld.AR submitted that TPO had not granted adjustment on account of capacity and utilization. Ld.AR submitted that assessee had referred to the report of Financial Markets and Foreign Exchange Management. However, Ld.AR further submitted that copy of the complete report was not filed by the assessee before the TPO. Ld.AR submitted that assessee intends to file copy of the complete report as additional evidence. Ld.AR further submitted that complete report was inadvertently not filed. Ld.AR requested to admit the additional evidence.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidence in the form of Paper Book. Since, the additional evidence produced by the assessee in this case are crucial, the Ld.AR requested the Bench to set aside the issue and remit the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.

4.

We observe that admittedly, in this case, the documents filed as Additional Evidence were not filed before the AO/TPO. Since the assessee produced the additional evidence before us in the form of Paper Book, in the interest of justice and as per the request of the Ld.AR, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO/TPO for adjudicating the same afresh. We direct the TPO to consider the additional evidence and after providing opportunity to the assessee, pass appropriate order. Accordingly, Grounds raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th June, 2026 (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 09-06-2026 Tadepalli Naga Murali Mohan Murali Mohan TNMM Date: 2026.06.10 11:14:40 +05'30'

3 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

2.3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →