LIEBHERR CMC TECH I P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 663/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 December 2022AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the DRP cannot set aside issues for further enquiry to the Assessing Officer as per Section 144C(8). The DRP's direction to set aside the issue was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee objected to an addition made by the Assessing Officer for alleged mismatch in sales turnover. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for further enquiry, which the assessee argued violated Section 144C(8).

What were the issues?

Whether the DRP can set aside an issue for further enquiry to the Assessing Officer, and if this action violates Section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(8),Section 143(3),Section 144C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture
Hearing: 07.12.2022Pronounced: 12.12.2022

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 30.06.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in the law learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,32,81,458 being alleged mismatch in the amount of sales turnover as per service tax return and amount reflected in notes of audited financial statements, by assuming that said amount is turnover of the appellant without realizing the facts that this amount represent services availed and Reverse Charge Mechanism therefore entire addition needs to be deleted.”

3. The appellant raised the following additional ground of appeal :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in setting aside the issue of alleged mismatch of service tax turnover, for further enquiry to the Assessing Officer, as the action is in direct violation of provisions of Section 144C(8) of the IT Act, 1961, the order passed by DRP is void ab initio and deserves to be struck down. Your appellant prays accordingly.”

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling and trading of construction equipment. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 30.11.2017 declaring Rs.Nil income. The assessee company also reported certain international transactions. On noticing international transactions, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions. The TPO vide an order dated 26.10.2020 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested no TP adjustments. On receipt of the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 09.08.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.

More judgments on Section 144C(8)

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(8) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →