Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “C” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1377/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Taiyo Nippon Sanso India Pvt. Ltd., A-1/2-2A, Village Shinde, Taluka The DCIT, Circle-8, Khed, Chakan MIDC, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, vs. Chakan, Pune, Khed. Akurdi, Pune. PIN 410 501 Maharashtra. PAN AADCK8374M Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kishor B Phadke For Revenue : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016- 2017, arise against the CIT(A), Pune-13, Pune’s Din and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1057216947(1), dated 19.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)'s order herein has affirmed both the lower authorities action making the impugned
2 I.T.A.No.1377/PUN./2023 transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,78,75,043/- regarding the assessee’s international transactions in “Non-ASU” segment proposed in the Transfer Pricing Officer’s order dated 30.10.2019 and accepted by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 22.02.2020, respectively.
Mr. Kulkarni vehemently argued that the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned adjustment in light of the corresponding comparables taken in sec.92CA(3) proceedings.
We noticed in this factual backdrop that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix of the impugned transfer pricing adjustment once it has come on record that the learned CIT(A)'s order has nowhere considered merits of the issues followed by his detailed adjudication as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act. What all he has done in his order is to record the assessee’s failure in responding to the lower appeal hearing notices followed by his findings that no interference is warranted in the lower authorities action making the foregoing adjustment. Coupled with this, the assessee has attributed reason of it’s non- interference before the CIT(A) as lack of communication between the concerned auditor’s and authorised representative’s office(s). Be that as it may, once it has come on record that the learned CIT(A) has not decided the foregoing
3 I.T.A.No.1377/PUN./2023 sole issue on merits, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to him for his afresh appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2024.