AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal. Both are in relation to assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. The revenue has come in appeal against this order of the Tribunal to the extent it dismisses the appeals preferred by it. 3. The appeals by the revenue arose from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25th February, 2011 and 25th June, 2010. 4. Mr. Pinto appearing on behalf of the revenue in support of these appeals, submits that the ground of the revenue which is pressed before the Tribunal and equally before us pertains to deletion of the addition on account of adjustment to Arm's length price (in short 'ALP'). Mr.Pinto submits that though, the substantial questions of law as framed in the present appeals are not happily w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there is no merit in the appeals. The Transfer Pricing Officer has in a short and cryptic order held that the assessee before him did not identify the parties / instances as comparable. This was a finding rendered by the Transfer Pricing Officer despite the assessee appearing before him in pursuance to the notice under section 92CA(2) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer's order would indicate as to how the assessee filed documents, international transactions with the associated enterprises for computation of the Arm's Length Price. All this matters were repeatedly brought forward by the assessee and the Transfer Pricing Officer was requested to look into the documents and the papers before him. There is correspondence to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is drawn by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These were not before the officer and that is how the matter ought to go back to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Mr.Kaka submits that from para 31 of the order of the Tribunal, it would be apparent that record was very much there before the Transfer Pricing Officer. He did not perform his duty in law and that is how the Commissioner had to step in and eventually the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal did not and rightly permit the departmental representative to argue the appeal contrary to the record. This appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law and deserves to be dismissed. 6. With the assistance of Mr.Pinto and Mr.Kaka,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sub-section and particularly sub-section (3), what the Transfer Pricing Officer is obliged to do is to consider the evidence and it is open to him to call upon the assessee to clarify anything in relation to the instances which have been brought forward as evidence to support the computation. He could also call upon the assessee to produce evidence on any specific point. He has to thereafter take into account all relevant materials which he has gathered and pass an order in writing. In the present case not only the record to the Transfer Pricing Officer was submitted and he was furnished the evidence by the assessee, but the assessee was present to give any clarification. The assessee's representative remained present and his name is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing officer to consider it and conclude that the instances are not comparable. Any comparable cases as brought by the assessee could have been scrutinized in this backdrop and on this touchstone. 7. We do not find that the Tribunal has either taken the revenue by surprise or in fact treated the revenue unfairly, leave alone unjustly. It has not allowed the revenue's representative to travel beyond the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the assessing officer so as to make out some different case. That was fully justified in the given facts and circumstances. The Tribunal was also not obliged in the peculiar facts of this case to send the matter back to anybody else much less the Transfer Pricing Officer. That is why it cons....