2014 (1) TMI 1545 - AT - Income Tax

Interpretation of section 92C(2) of the Act Held that - The CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee for a sum of Rs.1,21,74,468/- being 5% of the margin of international transactions and such deduction is allowed as standard deduction - The assessee has not been able to explain the delay in filing cross objections - the delay in filing the cross objections cannot be condoned - even while deciding departmental appeal on the basis of retrospective amendment which was not there when first appellate authority has decided the issue matter remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to deletion of TP adjustment, which the revenue is contesting only on the basis of retrospective amendment. We consider it appropriate to restore the entire issue regarding TP adjustment to the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the same by taking into account the aforementioned amendment as well as the other grievances of the assessee on T.P adjustment by giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act
- Granting of -5% relief as standard deduction
- Condonation of delay in filing cross objections
- Retroactive amendment affecting TP adjustment
- Restoration of the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)
- Infructuous nature of one of the appeals

Interpretation of section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The judgment dealt with the interpretation of section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting this provision in both appeals. The appellant argued that the benefit of -5% relief should not be treated as a standard deduction. The court analyzed the provisions and found that the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act 2012 affected the applicability of the relief. The court acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had granted the relief based on the existing legal position, which was later altered by the amendment. Consequently, the court decided to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication in light of the retrospective amendment.

Granting of -5% relief as standard deduction:
The judgment addressed the issue of granting -5% relief as a standard deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed this relief to the assessee, but the court noted that the retrospective amendment impacted the availability of this relief. The court observed that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing cross objections. Despite dismissing the cross objections due to the delay, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court decided to restore the issue regarding TP adjustment to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, considering the retrospective amendment and the assessee's grievances.

Condonation of delay in filing cross objections:
The judgment discussed the belated filing of cross objections by the assessee and the request for condonation of the delay. The court noted the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, including the retrospective amendment and other circumstances beyond their control. However, the court found the explanation insufficient and dismissed the cross objections for lack of a proper justification for the delay.

Retroactive amendment affecting TP adjustment:
The judgment highlighted the impact of a retroactive amendment on the TP adjustment issue. The court recognized that the retrospective amendment altered the legal landscape relevant to the TP adjustment. Considering the change brought about by the amendment, the court decided to send the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the amended provisions and the parties' contentions.

Restoration of the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A):
The judgment focused on the decision to restore the issue regarding TP adjustment to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The court emphasized the need to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to address the retrospective amendment and contest the TP adjustment issues. By ordering the restoration, the court aimed to ensure a just and comprehensive reconsideration of the matter in accordance with the law.

Infructuous nature of one of the appeals:
The judgment concluded that one of the appeals filed by the revenue was held to be infructuous due to the decision made in another related appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, aligning with the decision rendered in the related appeal. The court provided a clear and concise summary of the outcomes for each appeal, ensuring a comprehensive and definitive resolution of the legal issues involved.