HARTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 762/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 July 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the TPO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee liberty to produce necessary documents. The TPO was directed to provide an adequate opportunity for hearing and document submission.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to produce Marketing Services Agreements with Associated Enterprises before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) refused to entertain these agreements when submitted later. The assessee requested the issue be restored to the TPO for re-adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to produce documents that were not filed before the TPO, and if the matter should be remanded for re-adjudication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal contests the order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide F.No.30/DRP-2/BNG/2016-17 dated 02.12.2016.

2.

Mr.T.Banusekar represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.Srinivasa Rao represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld.A.R that in the course of proceedings before the TPO, the assessee had been unable to file the copy of the Marketing Services Agreements entered into between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises (A.E). It was a submission that assessee had attempted to file the said agreements (two sets) before the Hon’ble DRP. The DRP refused to entertain the said agreements. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for re-adjudication after granting assessee adequate opportunity to produce all the details & agreements in the course of being heard before the ld.TPO.

4.

In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of final assessment order and the Hon’ble DRP. It was a submission that another opportunity should not be granted to the assessee to produce documents.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee having been unable to produce certain documents before the TPO, the TPO may also have been able to adjudicate the issues without necessary evidentiary documents. Admittedly, the assessee has also suffered the consequence of not producing the documents before the TPO. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the issue in this appeal must be restored to the file of ld.TPO for re- adjudication and liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all such documents, if it feels necessary, to substantiate its case. The ld. TPO shall adjudicate the issue after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and for producing all such documents as are deemed necessary by the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 02nd July, 2018, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →