TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the A.O under Section 144C (13) is bad in law and liable to be quashed and the direction given by the DRP were in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and provision of Section 144C of the Act. 3. That the direction given by DRP are not valid and bad in law as the same has been given without considering the argument evidences and factual errors pointed out by the assessee and without giving any reasons to not accepting or rejecting the same. 4(i). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DCIT has erred both on facts and in law in taking the returned income at Rs.9,11,99,130/- instead of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RP and his main contention is that the DRP while giving its direction has not considered the arguments, evidence and factual error as pointed out by the assessee and without giving any reason for not accepting or rejecting the same. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the order of DRP which reads as under: "Shri Himanshu Goyal appeared and argued that the arms length price determined by the Transfer Price Officer (TPO) is not correct. He argued that Rane TRW should not have been chosen as comparable and that company is in different scales of operation. Other arguments were taken. Assessee has filed alternate computation also. The order of TPO has been perused. The objection raised be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the order of DRP is lacuna and non-speaking order, such an order is not legally tenable, so the order of DRP should be set-aside. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has supported the order of DRP and requested to hold the same. 4. After going through the rival submissions and material on record, we find that as reproduced above, the main grievance of the petitioner is against the order of DRP, which was passed in the absence of non appreciation of arguments, evidence in support of assessee's claim as agitated before the Panel. According to us, the order of TPO may be upheld in case the arguments of learned Authorized Representative before DRP are same as before the TPO. In case before us, the fact is otherwise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apex Court rendered in the case of Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT & Anr. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 303 : (2008) 7 DTR (SC) 27 : (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), 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 speaking direction under s. 144C of the IT Act, 1961. The basis of that order is that the Tribunal was in agreement with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the assessee's submission has been brushed aside without giving proper consideration by the DRP. 7. Now, we examine the facts of the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, we are in agreement with learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the assessee's submissions had been brushed aside without giving proper consideration by DRP. 9. Under this factual position as discussed above, we respectfully follow the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone Essar Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Gap International Sourcing India (P) Ltd. (supra) and restore the entire matter back to the file of DRP to consider the issue again and to pass a proper, speaking and reasoned order under s. 144C of the IT Act, 1961 after considering all objections of the assessee. Since we are remitting the matter to the files of DRP for passing fresh ....