PRICE AND BUCKLAND (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2)(1), NOIDA, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 1/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted replies before the CIT(A) but failed to submit documents or written submissions before the AO. The CIT(A) decided the appeal for non-filing of documents. The Tribunal considered that the assessee was out of India and the Indian director of the company had died. In the interest of justice, it was considered expedient to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the AO, and restore the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the substantive grounds of appeal related to the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to foreign remittance, international transactions, and depreciation claim. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 64,40,011 and Rs. 41,00,000. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee was out of India, with its Indian director having died during Covid. The Departmental Representative contended that the assessee failed to submit documents despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal purely on conjectures and surmises by erroneously citing non-submission of written submissions by the Appellant, turning on the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 41,00,000 for alleged bogus purchases is in gross violation of the factual matrix, considering payments made to creditors and not disturbing sales, and whether the CIT(A) erroneously relied on investigation wing information without independent enquiry, turning on the principles of evidence and independent verification. 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 41,00,000 is unsustainable due to gross violation of the opportunity for cross-examination, turning on the principles of natural justice. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the upward addition of Rs. 64,40,011 based on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) order, considering an operating margin of 3.22 percent while ignoring the actual margin earned by the appellant, turning on the provisions of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the TPO's addition of Rs. 64,40,011 by brushing aside the fact that the conditions specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act have not been satisfied, turning on Section 92C(3). 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Rs. 64,40,011 based on comparable companies that are functionally and economically different from the appellant's business profile, turning on Section 92C. 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 64,40,011 by relying on companies with irregular turnover and non-typical margins, turning on Section 92C. 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Rs. 64,40,011 by not allowing the benefit of (+/-) 5% as provided in the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, turning on Section 92C(2). Assessee's contentions: The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, failing to appreciate documents uploaded on the portal. The assessee was out of India, and its Indian director died during Covid. The matter should be restored to the AO. The assessee relied on screenshots and a death certificate. Revenue's contentions: The assessee failed to submit documents despite several opportunities from the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 92C(3),Section 92C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Hearing: 02.02.2026Pronounced: 02.02.2026

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 14.07.2025 of

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as ‘The CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated

18.06.2021 of Ld. Assessing Officer/National Faceless Assessment Centre,

Delhi, u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) read with section 144B of the Act for AY:

2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on

15.11.2017 at total income of Rs.37,08,000/-. The case of the assessee was

selected for scrutiny through CASS for reasons “Foreign

Remittance, International Transaction (s) and Depreciation Claim”. Notice

u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) were

issued. Draft assessment order u/s 144C dated 15.04.2021 was issued to the

assessee for compliance but he failed to do so. On completion of proceeding,

Ld. AO vide order dated 18.06.2021 made additions of Rs.64,40,011/- and

Rs.41,00,000/-.

3.

Against the order dated 18.06.2021 of ld. AO assessee filed appeal

before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2025.

4.

Being aggrieved appellant assessee preferred present appeal on

following grounds:

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18)

“1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (LD. CIT(A)) has erred in law and on facts by rejecting the appeal of the appellant purely on conjectures and surmises, by erroneously citing non-submission of written submissions by the Appellant. 2. That the impugned addition of Rs.41,00,000 made by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of the factual matrix of the case of the appellant vis- à-vis payment made to creditors for the alleged purchases made during the year under consideration and not disturbing the sales. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously relied upon the information received from investigation wing without making any independent enquiry which is nothing but borrowed satisfaction for upholding the addition of Rs.41,00,000 on account of alleged bogus purchases made by the appellant. 4. That the impugned addition of Rs.41,00,000 made by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of the opportunity to cross-examination in absence of which the impugned addition of Rs.41,00,000 is not sustainable. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO for making the upward addition of Rs.64,40,011 basis the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) by considering operating margin of 3.22 percent for making Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment ignoring the actual margin earned by the appellant. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO for making the addition of Rs.64,40,011 brushing aside the fact that the conditions specified in Clause (a) to Clause (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) have not been satisfied. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO in making the impugned addition of Rs.64,40,011 brushing aside the fact that conditions specified in Clause (a) to Clause (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) have not been satisfied. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Rs.64,40,011 made by the Ld. TPO basis the comparable companies being functionally and economically different qua the business profile of the Appellant. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO for making addition of Rs.64,40,011 basis the TPO's order relying on companies having irregular turnover and non-typical margin. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO for making the impugned addition of Rs.64,40,011 by not allowing the benefit of (+1) 5% as provided in the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant.

That the appellant craves leave for addition/modification/deletion of any ground of appeal before or during the time of hearing.”

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 5. Ld. Authorized Representatives for appellant assessee submitted that

ld. CIT(A) while passing ex-parte order failed to appreciate that the

documents uploaded on portal during the assessment proceedings concerning

the alleged bogus purchases (the assessment order mentions non-compliance

and absence of documents on the portal; relevant screenshots are attached).

Assessee was out of India and Indian director of assessee had died during

Covid Reference to page No. 5 i.e. screen shot and copy of death certificate

page No. 66 of paper book is important. So the matter be restored to the file

of ld. AO.

6.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted that despite several

opportunities by ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to submit the documents.

7.

From the examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention it

is crystal clear that in response to notices assessee submitted replies before ld.

CIT(A) but failed to submit documents or written submissions before ld. AO.

Ld. CIT(A) vide order date 14.07.2025 decided the appeal for non-filing of

documents in support of grounds of appeal. Assessee was out of India, and

Indian director of company Shri Naveen Thapliyal died on 09.05.2021. In

view of above material facts in the interest of justice it is considered

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) expedient to set aside the order dated 14.07.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) ad

18.06.2021 of Ld. AO and restore the matter to the file of ld. AO for fresh

decision in accordance with law, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to

the appellant assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Vimal Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 03.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →