9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 143(3) on 31.12.2010 incorporating the adjustments proposed by the TPO along with certain additions. The petitioner filed its objection to the said draft order of assessment before the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short, 'DRP'), which upheld the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. 2. For arriving at the arm's length price of the international transactions of the petitioner, the TPO had considered certain information, which was not available in the public domain by issuing notices under Section 133(6) of the Income Act. The petitioner made several requests for providing information, however, as no such information was not furnished, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23564 and 24976 of 2011. By order, dated 15.11.2011, this Court allowed the said writ petitions on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remitted the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income tax. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, it appears that the department furnished the information to the petitioner and the petitioner filed its detailed analysis on 11.3.2014 and considering the same, the first respondent has passed the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of this Court in the WPs mentioned supra, the collated information/materials in terms of Sec.133(6) were furnished to the petitioner and objections thereof were called for. The petitioner vide its letter dated 11.3.14 submitted the detailed reply based upon the information furnished by the TPO. Upon consideration of the said objections, the TPO, in the impugned proceedings modified the re-computation of income making an upward adjustment to Rs. 57.05 crores, instead of Rs. 110.25 crores. Thus this Respondent in due compliance with the order of this Court, provided all the materials/information and Petitioner pursuant thereto filed objections and while providing opportunity, passed the impugned order. 6. It is further stated that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to adopt dilatory tactics to keep matters pending and prevent finality. The petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to raise a fresh plea regarding most appropriate method adopted by the TPO to arrive at ALP, from CUP method to TNMM method in respect of the international transactions relating to citi group entities. The petitioner is making erroneous assertion that orders passed by this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record. 10. Mr.N.Venkataraman, learned senior counsel would contend that in compliance of the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.23564 & 24976 of 2011, the first respondent ought to have made the assessment de novo after considering the objections made by the petitioner, however, the first respondent without considering the objections, reiterated the same findings, which is nothing but an empty ritual of formality without in essence complying with the principles of natural justice. He contended that mere receiving and providing opportunities would not meet the ends of justice until a well reasoned order is passed having considered the objections raised by the petitioner. He pointed out that the first respondent has erroneously interpreted the order of this Court as if directing him with a limited scope of providing information sought for by the petitioner and complete the assessment and that he has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the CUP method for benchmarking transactions with Citi Group and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction in case of availability of an alternative remedy is a self imposed restriction based upon convenience and discretion rather then a rule of law. In appropriate cases where there is a serious flaw in the decision making process or prejudice is caused to a party on account of breach of natural justice, we are enjoined to exercise our writ jurisdiction. In fact non exercise of our writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases would amount to abdication of our obligation to ensure that justice is done. Therefore the availability of an alternative remedy would not by itself bar the exercise of our writ jurisdiction, if the facts of the case so deserve." Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that the impugned order is not sustainable. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that in compliance to the orders of this Court in earlier writ petitions, the department has furnished all material information in terms of Section 133(6) and on consideration of the objections made by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order and there was no direction of this Court that the first respondent should make a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above said writ petitions, having noted that the petitioner was not furnished with the relevant information regarding the method of filtering which resulted in taking 28 comparable cases, the detailed search process carried by the department, the notices issued to the companies under Section 133 (6), etc., which crippled the petitioner to make an effective reply to the notice, this Court was of the view that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice and on that limited score, i.e. violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petitions came to be allowed. 15. In compliance to the above said order, it is not in dispute that the respondents have furnished the complete set of information collected under Section 133(6) to the petitioner and pursuant to the same, the petitioner also filed detailed objections on 4.4.2014. Having considered the objections raised by the petitioner, the first respondent determined the arm's length price of the international transaction of the petitioner by selecting the following sets of companies as comparables, viz., i) Comparables selected by the TPO in earlier order, dated 26.10.2010; and ii) Comparables newly identified by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also considered the eight comparables newly identified by the petitioner using information collected from responses to letters issued under Section 133(6) and thereby determined the arm's length revenue at Rs. 57,05,68,292/- which is considerably lower than the erstwhile draft assessment, wherein, it was determined at Rs. 110.27 crores. Hence, the contention that the first respondent has reiterated the earlier findings, cannot be accepted. Therefore, it seems that the petitioner is not aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the premise that it was reiterated on earlier findings without making de novo assessment, but for the order that was not passed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner by their expectation. 17. For the fore going reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent in order to interfere with same. In such view of the matter, the reliance sought for by the petitioner, is no way helpful to the case of the petitioner. Since efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner as against the impugned order under the Act, this Court is not inclined to delve upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
