Tribunal overturns CIT(A) decision on transfer pricing, remits for fresh determination.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing addition amounting to Rs. 74,70,729/-, finding it unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of the arm's length price of the international transaction, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 10.03.2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of transfer pricing addition amounting to Rs. 74,70,729/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Transfer Pricing Addition:

Facts of the Case:
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing auto parts and components, reported three international transactions: Purchase of material worth Rs. 6,78,21,310; Royalty paid for providing technical know-how worth Rs. 35,88,664; and Technical fee paid for providing technical assistance worth Rs. 10,96,337. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) disputed only the international transaction of 'Purchase of material' from its Associated Enterprise (AE), F-Tech, Japan. The TPO applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to determine the arm's length price (ALP).

TPO's Determination:
The TPO selected seven comparable companies and determined the average net profit margin at 9.87%. The assessee's net profit margin was calculated at 4.25%. By applying the average PLI of comparables to the assessee's total sales and job work, the TPO determined an additional net margin and proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 74,70,729/-.

CIT(A)'s Deletion of Addition:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on several reasons:
- The absence of unrecorded transactions or undisclosed facts reflecting the assessee's intent to avoid tax.
- The CIT(A) argued that the transfer pricing provisions do not prescribe comparing the net profit margin of the organization as a whole.
- Exclusion of five companies with higher turnover from the comparables.
- Consideration of the net profit margin of Unit-2 alone, which deals with the manufacturing and sale of automobile components.
- Comparison of the assessee's profit margin with that of its AE, which was found to be lower.
- Exclusion of depreciation on ED plant capitalized during the year.

Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion:
- The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not apply any recognized method to demonstrate that the international transaction was at ALP and did not maintain the required documentation.
- The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the absence of unrecorded transactions or intent to avoid tax negates the need for transfer pricing analysis.
- The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s exclusion of companies with higher turnover unjustified, citing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's ruling that high or low turnover is not a criterion for exclusion.
- The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) incorrectly assumed that all imports from AE were utilized only in Unit-2.
- The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s comparison of the assessee's profit margin with that of its AE.
- The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s exclusion of depreciation on the ED plant, noting the lack of clarity on its exclusive use for job work.

Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding the deletion of the transfer pricing addition unsustainable.
- The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

Outcome:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2017.

---