2020 (12) TMI 777 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 254 - HELD THAT - It is a case, where the Tribunal has disposed of the grounds in a particular manner. We are of the view they cannot be interfered with u/s 254(2). In clause (vi) of the miscellaneous application, it is stated that Tribunal has not decided about one comparable company named M/s South India Surgical Limited. Assessee has not raised any ground before the Tribunal with regard to comparable company. It is only stated that the assessee has argued before the Tribunal on the above said comparable. Since the above facts are not apparent from record, we are not able to appreciate this contention of the assessee and accordingly reject the same. It is the submission of the assessee that the Tribunal has committed an error in not admitting the additional grounds. However, we notice that the Tribunal has taken a particular view on the above matter. Hence, the same cannot be interfered with u/s 254(2) of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's order regarding exclusion of certain items from operating margin calculation.
2. Failure to adjudicate on specific grounds related to show cause notice and calculation errors by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
3. Omission to decide on comparables and additional grounds raised by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The assessee claimed that the Tribunal overlooked specific grounds related to exclusion of "claims received," "provisions written back," and "liability written back" from operating margin calculation. The Tribunal clarified that it had combined and adjudicated on these grounds collectively, hence no omission was found.

2. The Tribunal addressed the alleged mistakes in the TPO's calculation of operating margin and arithmetic mean of comparable companies. The assessee argued that the TPO's delayed action made the application time-barred. However, the Tribunal held that the TPO's authority was not affected by the delay, thus dismissing the claim.

3. The assessee contended that the Tribunal failed to consider South India Surgical Limited as a comparable company. Since no formal ground was raised on this issue, the Tribunal rejected the claim due to lack of record evidence.

4. The Tribunal declined to admit additional grounds raised by the assessee, stating they required factual adjudication, not just legal consideration. Despite the assessee's detailed justifications, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on the nature of the issues raised.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, emphasizing that the alleged mistakes were not apparent on the record and did not warrant rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal principles and the specific circumstances of each issue raised by the assessee.