TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gents, logistics providers, warehousing operators, shippers and shipping agents, handling and haulage, etc. The return was filed electronically on 15-11-2006 and a claim was made for carry forward of loss on account of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 8,30,084. The return was processed and selected for scrutiny. The notice under section 143(2) was served upon the assessee. The assessee has also filed a copy of return as required under section 92E in relation to the international transactions in a prescribed form 3CEB dated 15-11-2006. A reference was made to the TPO with the approval of CIT for computation of arm's length price under section 92C of Income-tax Act. 3. The grounds of appeal read as under :- "That on the facts and circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntation requirements under Rule 10D(1)(f) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. (f) failing to appreciate that the Appellant, being a newlyestablished company, could not be compared as-it-is with the comparable companies, which were quite old and well-established in the industry. (g) denying the benefit of (+/-) 5 per cent range mentioned in proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act while computing the ALP. (h) denying the Appellant, the benefit of a working capital adjustment. (i) grossly violating the principle of natural justice by failing to give any show cause notice and/or provide any reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to rebut the arguments evidence relied upon and/or the grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the TPO were made available to the assessee to revert back. Therefore, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice as provided in law. 5.1 The learned AR pleaded on this ground and submitted that as per the provisions of law, the assessee was not provided an opportunity by issuing the show cause notice before making the adjustments. This is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. He relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Moser Baer (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT [2009] 316 ITR 1/176 Taxman 473 and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 317/192 Taxman 317. He also relied on the decision of ITAT in the case of Converse Network Systems India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT IT Appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & M. Meyyappan v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 34 (SC); (ii) Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141 (Bang.)(SB); (iii) Cargill (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 110 ITD 616 (Delhi); (iv) CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the reply which has been submitted by the assessee in response to queries made on 4-9-2009 which are available at pages 203 to 206 of the paper book and further reply to the query submitted on 11-9-2009 which is available at pages 207 to 211 of the paper book constructively shows that assessee was provided with an opportunity prior to passing an order under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciples of natural justice. In the TPO order, it has however been stated that, 'The assessee vide order sheet dated 4-9-2009 was asked to furnish reasons as to why it has incurred loses in the current year. The assessee vide submission dated 11-9-2009 has submitted various reasons for incurring loses in current year. Thus, assessee was made aware of the TPO's stand by way of this show cause letter and several opportunities of hearing. The panel does not find the objection of the assessee as tenable." Thus, the DRP has also treated the order sheet notings as show cause notice and the opportunities of being heard as a sufficient compliance of providing opportunity of hearing heard. 7.1 After hearing both the sides and considering t....