TAIYO NIPPON SANSO INDIA PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1377/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 February 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits, having failed to consider the assessee's submissions due to communication issues. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-2017 involved a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,78,75,043/-. The CIT(A) affirmed the adjustment without considering the merits of the issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the transfer pricing adjustment on merits when the assessee failed to appear due to communication issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 250(6),Section 92CA(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “C” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,

Hearing: 08.02.2024Pronounced: 28.02.2024

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →