9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 7-1-2011 - ORDER A.K. Garodia, AM. This is an assessee s appeal which is directed against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), New Delhi dated 30.6.2010 passed u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That the assessment order passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Ld. DRP is a vitiated order as the Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the appellant s income by issuing a non-speaking order without appropriate application 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate reasons for such initiation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30th December, 2009 u/s 144C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. DRP has passed directions u/s 144C on 30.6.2010 against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the very outset, it was submitted by the Ld AR of the assessee that DRP 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 propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Gap International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case, the draft order of the Assessing Officer was dated 24.11.2009 and DRP passed directions u/s 144C on 31.5.2010. In that case, the Tribunal has reproduced the provisions of sub-sections (5) to (13) of section 144C and thereafter, it has been observed by the Tribunal in that case that the directions of the DRP are too laconic to be left un-commented. The Tribunal has considered the judgment of Hon 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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernational and how he has determined the arms length price of goods supplied free of cost. The DRP therefore, does not find any infirmity with the proposed order. The levy of interest is consequential and in any case at this stage is premature as is initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) 8. From the above order of DRP, it is apparent that the same is without considering various objections raised by the assessee before DRP and hence, we are in agreement with Id AR of the assessee that the assessee s submissions 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. (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
