2011 (1) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... approved by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Each of the ground is referred to separately which may kindly be considered independent of each other. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law:    1.  That Assessing Officer/DRP have erred in confirming the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs. 68,80,621/- to the total income of the appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transaction entered by the appellant with its associated enterprises.    2.  The DRP has erred in concurring with findings of the Assessing Officer/TPO and disregarding the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant for establishing the arm's lengt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 92F of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 31st December, 2009 u/s 144C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. DRP has passed directions u/s 144C on 30.4.2010 against which the assessee is in appeal before us. As per copy of objections filed by the assessee before DRP, which is running into three pages as available on record, it is seen that eight objections were raised by the assessee against the draft order dated 31.12.2009 but there is no finding given by the DRP regarding these objections raised by the assessee before it. 4. At the very outset, it was submitted by the Ld AR of the assessee that DRP has not at all considered the assessee's objections and passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, the draft order of the Assessing Officer was dated 24.11.2009 and DRP passed directions u/s 144C on 31.5.2010. In that case, the Tribunal has reproduced the provisions of sub-sections (5) to (13) of section 144C and thereafter, it has been observed by the Tribunal in that case that the directions of the DRP are too laconic to be left un-commented. The Tribunal has considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT as reported in 300 ITR 403, in which, it was held that even an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. In that case, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the DRP to consider the issue once again and to pass a proper and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions raised by the assessee after giving enough opportunity of being heard. The business model of the assessee has not changed over the years. The TP order is based on sound reasons., The denial of working capital adjustment to the assessee seems to be reasonable as the assessee has not justified the reasonableness and accuracy of such adjustments. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the case of the assessee and we do not intend to interfere in the order of the TPO." 8. From the above order of DRP, it is apparent that the same is without considering various objections raised by the assessee before DRP and hence, we are in agreement with ld AR of the assessee that the assessee's submissions had been brushed aside without giving proper con....