2010 (12) TMI 94 - AT - Income Tax

Direction passed by Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C - assessee contended that voluminous submissions have been made before the DRP against the draft assessment order. But the DRP has brushed aside everything without even a whisper of the assessee s objections and the submissions of the assessee. - Held that - the DRP has passed a very laconic order - The directions given by the DRP almost tantamounts to supervising the Assessing Officer s draft order and in that sense it can be equated that appellate jurisdiction being exercised. - an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute regarding the direction passed by the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute regarding the direction passed by the DRP under section 144C of the Income Tax Act

The appeal was against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 29.07.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. The Draft Order of the Assessing Officer was passed on 24.11.2009, and the DRP passed directions under section 144C on 31.5.2010. The counsel of the assessee contended that the DRP did not consider the assessee's submissions adequately and passed a brief direction. The DRP upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) decision to reject the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) used by the assessee, stating that the PLI should have an element of profit in the nominator. The DRP concluded that the TPO's method and PLI were appropriate, dismissing the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted that the DRP's direction was too concise and did not sufficiently address the assessee's objections and submissions, akin to supervising the Assessing Officer's draft order. Citing a Supreme Court case, it emphasized that administrative orders must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel that the submissions were disregarded by the DRP without proper consideration. The Departmental Representative did not challenge this assertion. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the DRP for a reevaluation and to issue a detailed direction under section 144C, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal clarified that it was not adjudicating on the merits of the case, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis covers the dispute regarding the direction passed by the DRP under section 144C of the Income Tax Act, highlighting the arguments presented, the Tribunal's observations, and the ultimate decision to remit the matter back to the DRP for a more comprehensive direction.