Court validates TPO notice under Income Tax Act for 2016-17 assessment year, upholds jurisdiction for ALP determination.

The court upheld the validity of the notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17, finding the reference to the TPO justified due to the reasons for scrutiny. It also affirmed the legality of the draft order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to refer the case to the TPO for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The court concluded that the compliance with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Instructions was met, dismissing the appeals and closing the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(2) and Section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the draft order under Section 144C of the Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to refer the case to the TPO for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
4. Compliance with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Instructions regarding limited scrutiny and reference to TPO.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued by the TPO:
The appellant/assessee challenged the notice dated 19.12.2018 issued by the TPO under Section 92CA(2) and Section 92D(3) for the assessment year 2016-17. The appellant argued that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was for limited scrutiny to verify if the value of international transactions was correctly shown in Form 3CEB and the return of income. They contended that the reference to the TPO for determining the ALP was unauthorized as per Instruction No.3 of 2016 issued by the CBDT. The court, however, found that the reason for scrutiny, which included large aggregate value of total employee cost in comparison to aggregate value of international transactions, justified the reference to the TPO.

2. Legality of the Draft Order under Section 144C:
The appellant also challenged the draft order under Section 144C passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 27.11.2019. The court noted that the appellant had cooperated and participated in the assessment proceedings and had filed objections to the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The court held that the issues raised in the writ petitions could not be agitated before the DRP, thus justifying the appellant's prosecution of the appeals.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to Refer to TPO:
The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer was not competent to refer the case to the TPO for determining the ALP, as the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The court, however, held that the Assessing Officer, being not competent to examine the value of international transactions, necessarily had to refer the case to the TPO as per Section 92CA of the Act. The court found no violation of CBDT instructions and concluded that the reference to the TPO was within jurisdiction.

4. Compliance with CBDT Instructions:
The appellant contended that the reference to the TPO violated CBDT instructions regarding limited scrutiny. The court examined the reasons for scrutiny, which included TP risk parameters, and concluded that the case was not merely for numerical reconciliation but involved substantial issues justifying the reference to the TPO. The court endorsed the finding that the reason for selection by CASS was not oversimplified and that the Assessing Officer's letter seeking reference to the TPO complied with the required conditions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the reference to the TPO was justified and within jurisdiction. The court found no violation of CBDT instructions and concluded that the learned Single Bench rightly dismissed the writ petitions. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---