ATRENTA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 970/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 August 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard before the TPO. The TPO was also directed to make the assessee aware of the material relied upon for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee raised several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and failure to provide a personal hearing or disclose relied-upon material by the TPO.

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer pricing proceedings were conducted with proper jurisdiction and whether the assessee was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and access to material relied upon by the TPO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 08.07.2021Pronounced: 23.08.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 970/Del/2016
ITA No. 1118/Del/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the AO u/s 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Ground No. 2 of the assessee is as under:

“2. The order passed by the Id. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, as the Transfer Pricing Officer - 1 (1)(1), New Delhi (hereafter the TPO) is without jurisdiction, bad in law, null and void ab-initio inter alia because:

ITA No. 970/Del/2017 & 2 Atrenta (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) The transfer pricing proceedings were taken up by the Id. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, as the Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(1), New Delhi and there is no order by the Competent / Higher Authority transferring the proceedings to the Id. TPO; (2) The Id. TPO failed to provide any opportunity of personal hearing to the Assessee after issuing the show cause notice, despite specific request; (3) The Id. TPO failed to provide, to the Assessee, the material relied upon by the Id. TPO, despite specific request; (4) The Id. TPO failed to allow inspection of the material relied upon by the Id. TPO, despite specific request; (5) The order has been passed by the Id. TPO with the approval of the Higher Authority; (6) The observations, by the Id. TPO, are against the facts of the case; (7) The order of the Id. TPO is non-speaking inter alia because the Id. TPO did not consider the submissions of the Assessee and did not provide reasons / basis for the decision.”

3.

The ld. DRP did not adjudicate this issue raised by the assessee specifically before them and held at para 17 that the & 3 ITA No. 1118/Del/2017 Atrenta (India) Pvt. Ltd. proceedings before DRP are a continuation of assessment proceedings and the assessee had full opportunity before the DRP. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. DRP.

4.

We have gone through the record and hold that based on the specifics peculiar to the instant case, interest of justice would be well served for both the parties if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee before the TPO. The TPO shall also make sentient of the assessee on the material relied upon in determining the ALP.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/08/2021.

More judgments on Section 144C(1)

All 423 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →