GLOBAL MARKETS CENTRE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार/ PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order dated 28.03.2014 of CIT(A)-15,Mumbai,the assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee-company,engaged in providing offshore support services to its Associated Enterprises(AE),filed its return of income on 31.10.2017,declaring total income of Rs.23,00,816/-.The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment,u/s.143(3)of the Act, on 31.12.2010,determining its income at 1.74 crores. Brief Facts: 2.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found the assessee had entered into Inter- national Transactions (IT.s)with its AE.s.He made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)to determine the Arm’s Length Price(ALP)of the IT.s. During the Transfer Pricing(TP) proceedings the TPO found assessee has adopted TNMM as most appropriate method for determining the ALP, that the PLI was net cost plus(NCP),that the multiple year NCP margins was 16.16%, that it had considered 12 comparables, that the NCP margin of the assessee was at 23%, that the assessee had claimed that the margin shown was higher than margin of the comparables,that it claimed that IT.s entered into were at arm’s length. The TPO rejected nine (9) of the comparables selected by the assessee on the ground that they were functionally different.He also used additional filters for rejecting the compara- bles of the assessee.He selected 25 comparables,including three comparables of the assessee, for determining the ALP of the IT.s.He held that in that single year NCP margin of the 4273 0f 2014-Global Markets Centre Private Limited comparables was 30.75%, that the NCP margin of the assessee was 23%, that the transaction were not at arm’s length.He proposed an addition of Rs.1,51,66,149/-. After receiving order of the TPO and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee about the proposed TP adjustments,the AO completed the assessment by making an adjust - ment of Rs.1.51 crores to the income of the assessee.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA),who dismissed the appeal vide his order,dated 23.02.2012.The Tribunal set aside the order of the FAA,vide its order, dated 25.10.2013.It directed the FAA to decide the issue/grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merits. 3.In pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal,the FAA heard the assessee again.Before him vide its letter dated 28.08.2013(Pg. -155 of the PB),the assessee made detailed submissions about inclusion/exclusion of the certain comparables for arriving at ALP.The FAA after considering the available material again upheld the order of the AO/TPO. 4.Before us,the Authorised Representative (AR)submitted that the assessee had made specific submissions about four comparables,that it had given reasons to include them in the final list,that for excluding nine comparables it had made detailed submissions,that the FAA did not consider any of the submissions and confirmed the order of the AO,that if the exclusion / inclusion of above referred comparables was done there would not be any adjustment.The Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.This is the second round of litigation and is result of non consideration of the submissions of the assessee by the FAA.We find that by its letter dtd.25.10.2013,the assessee had made specific arguments for including four comparables and excluding nine comparables.But,the FAA did not take cognizance of the letter for the reasons best known to him.Therefore,in our opinion,in the interest of justice,matter should be restored back to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. We direct him to decide the issue afresh after considering the letter dated 25.10.2013 and other material relied upon by the assessee.He is directed to give clear finding about the comparables relied upon by the assessee as well as about the comparables that have been challenged by it.Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee,in part. As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. फलतः िनधा�रती �ारा दािखल क� गई अपील अंशतः मंजूर क� जाती है.