Tribunal Upholds Capacity Adjustment, Excludes Comparables, Declares Assessment Void Ab Initio

The Tribunal upheld the Capacity Utilization Adjustment, directing the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to follow the procedure outlined in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparables, noting the mitigating impact of the capacity utilization adjustment. The Tribunal found the assessment order void ab initio for violating Section 144C, allowing the additional ground of appeal. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes, the cross-objection of the assessee became academic, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Capacity Utilization Adjustment
2. Inclusion of Comparables
3. Validity of Assessment Order under Section 144C

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Capacity Utilization Adjustment:
The assessee argued that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had correctly allowed the "Capacity Utilization Adjustment." The assessee's capacity utilization during the financial year 2004-05 was 49.53%, compared to the average 69.41% of its comparables, leading to a lower net profit due to under-absorption of fixed costs. The assessee proposed an adjustment to the operating profit to account for this under-absorption. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referenced several rulings, including Global Vantedge (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT and E-Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd., supporting the need for adjustments to ensure comparability. The Tribunal upheld this view, directing the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to follow the procedure outlined in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05, as per Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules.

2. Inclusion of Comparables:
The second issue involved the inclusion of three comparables: Force Motors Limited, Hindustan Motors Limited, and Kerala Automobiles Limited. The TPO had excluded these comparables, but the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed their inclusion. The Tribunal noted that the TPO had provided detailed reasoning for their exclusion, while the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had given detailed findings for their inclusion. However, the Tribunal upheld the TPO’s decision to exclude these comparables, based on the assessee's submission that even if the comparables were excluded, the capacity utilization adjustment would mitigate any impact on the assessee.

3. Validity of Assessment Order under Section 144C:
The assessee challenged the assessment order dated 12.03.2013 as void ab initio for violating Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. The contention was that the Assessing Officer issued a notice of demand and penalty notice along with the draft assessment order, which contravened the mandatory procedure under Section 144C. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including DCIT Vs. Rehau Polymers (P) Ltd., Soktas India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television, which held that such procedural violations rendered the assessment order null and void. The Tribunal concluded that the draft assessment order was invalid, thereby allowing the additional ground of appeal. Consequently, all other grounds in the appeal became academic in nature.

Conclusion:
- The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.714/PUN/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
- The cross-objection of the assessee in CO. No.41/PUN/2011 becomes academic in nature.
- The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.546/PUN/2014 is allowed.

Order Pronounced on 02nd day of July, 2019.

---