TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 passed by Ld.CIT (A)-2, Bengaluru for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Ground No. 1-2 raised by assessee is challenging validity of order passed by Ld.AO u/s. 143 (3) read with section 254 read with section 263 of the Act as under: A. Grounds of appeal relating to validity of order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 263 of the ACT. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 263 of the Act which is in violation of the mandate of section 144C of the Act; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the Appellant's plea that the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance of transfer pricing order is void ab initio as the Assessing Officer has violated the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct as held by this court in its decision dated 17/07/2015 in ITA No. 275/2015 Pr. CIT vs Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Pvt. Ltd.,." Therefore, is submitted that once the TPO's order is remanded back to the TPO/AO by the ITAT, the AO/TPO should have ideally passed the draft order considering the written submissions filed and not a final order and it is not curable defect as per the SC order. However, it is seen that the Hon'ble tribunal had set aside the matter to the file of the AO in relation to the corporate tax matters pertaining to allowance of depreciation of networking equipment's and on transfer pricing matters relating to payment of advertisement support services. The TPO while passing the original TP order u/s.92CA had fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esolution Panel [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Mad.). 8. ESPN Sports Mauritius S.N. C. ET Compagnie Vs. Union of India [2016] 388 ITR 383 (Del.). 5. On the contrary, Ld. CIT DR submitted that, there is nothing in the wording of section 144C (1) which would indicate that this requirement of passing draft assessment order in the remand proceedings of an issue by ITAT is to be satisfied. It was submitted that, assessment order cannot be considered to be invalid because even if there is any failure to pass draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act the same is curable u/s. 292B of the Act. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us 6. The issue that arises from arguments advanced by both sides is; whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fer pricing issue regarding international transaction of availing administrative services by assessee from its AE to Ld.AO/TPO for readjudicating afresh. * Ld.TPO vide separate orders dated 28/03/2016 computed proposed adjustment at Rs. 2,16,37,189/- for assessment year 2008-09 and for assessment year 2009-10 proposed adjustment was computed at Rs. 7,35,53,154/-. * For assessment year 2008-09 Ld.TPO passed final assessment order dated 13/03/2016 u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s.254 r.w.s.263 of the Act computing addition and issuing demand notice and challan. * For assessment year 2009-10 similar order was passed on 26/10/2016, u/s.143 (3) r.w.s.254 r.w.s.263 of the Act computing addition, and issuing demand notice and challan. 7. Ld.AO while pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opy thereof to assessee and only thereupon the assessee could exercise the right under 144C (2) of the Act to raise objections before DRP on proposed variations. This requirement the courts has been held to be mandatory that gives substantive rights to assessee to object to any additions, before they are made, and such objections have to be considered not by the assessing officer but by the DRP. We therefore reject the argument of Ld. CIT DR that failure to adhere to requirement under 144C (1) is curable defect u/s. 292B of the Act. Respectfully following ratio laid down by various High Courts on this issue referred to herein above, we set aside and quash orders dated 30/03/2016 for assessment year 2008-09 and 26/10/2016 for assessment yea....