M/S. DANIELI INDIA LIMITED,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2678/KOL/2024Status: FixedITAT Kolkata05 August 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte, determining that the adjournment application lacked valid reasons and that the counsel's non-uniform appearance violated SOP. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) regarding the TP adjustment and leave encashment, as the assessee failed to rebut any factual findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Sections 143(3), 144C(13), and 144B of the Income Tax Act. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel submitted an adjournment application citing awaited clarifications, but also appeared without the prescribed uniform. The appeal addressed disputes concerning Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment and an addition related to leave encashment.

What were the issues?

Whether the adjournment application was valid and counsel's non-uniform appearance justified an ex-parte hearing; and whether the TPO's findings on TP adjustment and leave encashment could be interfered with.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 05/08/2025Pronounced: 05/08/2025

(निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2021-2022) M/s Danieli India Limited Vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Technopolis, 5th Floor, B Wing Block BP, Plot No.-IV, Sec-V, Salt Lake, Sech Bhawan S.O., Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas West Bengal-700091 PAN No. :AABCG 5359 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Riya Shah, CA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Per George Mathan, JM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.AO passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Act, dated 25.10.2024.

2.

When the matter was called call upon for hearing, an adjournment application has been filed which reads as under :-

2 ITANo.2678/Kol/2024 3. The counsel who appeared, namely, Ms. Riya Shah, CA on the online mode was not in uniform also. Repeated instructions have been issued that counsels who appear in the court are to be in uniform. This is also a part of SOP provided. Consequently, as it is noticed that the adjournment application does not give valid reasons for the adjournment and as the counsel was not in uniform, the appeal is being heard ex-parte.

4.

Ld.CIT-DR was requested to make his submissions and he vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the ld. DRP had directed the Assessing Officer to reverify the computation after taking the correct financials of the comparable companies into consideration and rectify the computational errors, if any. The ld. Assessing Officer has given multiple opportunities as is evident from the assessment order and the direction of the DRP has been followed substantially by the TPO. In page 5 of the order, the Assessing Officer has also considered the directions and has reduced the TP adjustment from Rs.19.80 crores to Rs.15.26 crores. In regard to the addition in respect of leave encashment the same has been considered in depth in para 7 &8 at pages 6 & 7 of the order. The assessee has not been able to dislodge any of the findings of fact as has been discussed by the TPO. As the assessee has not been able to dislodge any of the findings of fact, we are of the view that the findings as arrived at by the TPO does not call for any interference. Consequently, the order of the ld. TPO stands upheld.

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 →