9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of mind. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while undertaking the addition of Rs. 1,57,30,000/- the Ld. DRP has inter alia grossly erred: 2.1 in misinterpreting the provisions of section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 in considering free cost supply of chemicals to a third party customer viz AT&S India Ltd. a domestic company, as deemed related party international transactions u/s 92B of the Act. 2.3 in going beyond the jurisdiction and making an adjustment in respect of a domestic transaction. 2.4 in not appreciating the business rationale for making free of cost supply to a key customer AT&S and disregarding the business/commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P has not at all considered the assessee's submissions and passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order and therefore, this order of DRP is not sustainable. It is also submitted that various factual and legal arguments against the addition proposed by the Assessing Officer has been raised before DRP as per appendix-10 to Form No. 35A submitted before DRP, copy of which is available along with appeal memo of the assessee. It is also submitted that these objections of the assessee as per appendix-10 are running into 9 pages but the same was brushed aside by DRP without any comment or finding with regard to these objections. He also submitted a copy of the Tribunal decision in the case of Gap International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT as reported in 300 ITR 403, 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 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The basis of that order is that the Tribunal was in agreement with the submissions of the Ld AR 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 case. In the present case also, it is admitted position that as per appendix-10 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions 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 Pvt. 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 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after considering all objections of the assessee. Since we are remitting the matter to the files of DRP for passing fresh direction, we do not make any comment about the merits of the case. Needless to say, the assessee should be given a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
