2023 (1) TMI 1476 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of orders passed u/s 144C without compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - HELD THAT - As under section 144C(13) AO is expected to give effect to the directions of the learned DRP. If the AO did not comply with the directions of DRP whatsoever may be the reason may be oversight or due to lack of or improper understanding of the directions the proper course is to seek the AO or the superior authorities the compliance with the order of the DRP but not to quash the entire proceedings thereby nullifying the entire exercise conducted by DRP. What is applicable for non-compliance with the directions of the Tribunal if any by AO would equally be made applicable to the directions of the DRP. With this view of the matter we are inclined to follow the decision of Yokogawa India Ltd 2022 (3) TMI 1563 - ITAT BANGALORE matter needs to be remanded to the file of the AO in case there is non-compliance with the directions of DRP. We therefore find it difficult to direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Instead while respectfully following the view taken in Yokogawa India Ltd. 2022 (3) TMI 1563 - ITAT BANGALORE and M/s. Apollo Health Street 2014 (12) TMI 515 - ITAT HYDERABAD we set aside the final assessment order and remand the issue to the file of AO/ TPO to pass appropriate order. Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the final assessment order dated 31/10/2017, passed by the learned Assessing Officer, was legally valid given the alleged non-compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also considered whether the failure to comply with the DRP's directions necessitates quashing the entire assessment order and deleting the additions made therein.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

Under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer is mandated to pass a final assessment order in accordance with the directions issued by the DRP. The Tribunal examined precedents from various cases, including decisions from the Bangalore Bench in cases such as M/s. Flextronics Technologies and M/s. Lenovo India Private Limited, which were cited by the assessee, and the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., which was cited by the Revenue.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Tribunal noted that the learned Assessing Officer, despite referencing the DRP's directions, determined the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for payments towards compensation and research and development at the same amount as in the draft assessment order, effectively disregarding the DRP's instructions. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer is required to comply with the DRP's directions, and any non-compliance should not result in quashing the entire proceedings.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Tribunal found evidence in the final assessment order itself that the learned Assessing Officer did not adhere to the DRP's directions, as the ALP was determined without considering the modifications suggested by the DRP. This non-compliance was central to the Tribunal's analysis.

Application of Law to Facts

The Tribunal applied the legal framework under Section 144C(13) and the precedents cited to the facts of the case. It concluded that non-compliance with the DRP's directions should not automatically lead to quashing the entire assessment order. Instead, the Tribunal decided that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the DRP's directions.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the final assessment order should be quashed due to non-compliance with the DRP's directions. However, it also considered the Revenue's argument, supported by the decision in Yokogawa India Ltd., that non-compliance should not result in quashing the order but rather in remanding the matter for proper consideration. The Tribunal found the latter argument more persuasive.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate course of action was to set aside the final assessment order and remand the issue to the learned Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with the DRP's directions, ensuring that the assessee is given a proper opportunity to present their case.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that non-compliance with the DRP's directions does not necessitate quashing the entire assessment order. Instead, the matter should be remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal stated, "The proper course is to seek the learned Assessing Officer or the superior authorities, the compliance with the order of the learned DRP, but not to quash the entire proceedings thereby nullifying the entire exercise conducted by the learned DRP."

The Tribunal established the principle that in cases of non-compliance with DRP directions, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for appropriate action in accordance with the law, as reflected in the consistent view taken in Yokogawa India Ltd. and M/s. Apollo Health Street.

In conclusion, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the final assessment order set aside and the matter remanded to the learned Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in line with the DRP's directions.