9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso 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 ₹ 57,05,68,292/- which is considerably lower than the erstwhile draft assessment, wherein, it was determined at ₹ 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. - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No.5184 of 2015, And M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - MR. S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.N.Venkataraman, SC For Mr.K.Magesh For The Respondents : Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda ORDER The case of the petitioner in the writ petition in brief, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the petitioner/assessee filed its r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and reference was made to the 1st Respondent ( TPO ) for determination of Arm s Length Price ( ALP ) of the international transactions effected. The TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹ 110.827 crores by arriving at comparable companies margin which were higher than that of the Petitioner vide order dated 26.310.10. The assessing officer passed a draft assessment order dated 31.12.10 incorporating the adjustments proposed by the TPO along with certain other additions proposed by him. The Petitioner filed its objections before the Disputed Resolution Panel ( DRP ) against the draft assessment order and the same was confirmed by the proceedings dated 28.9.11. In the above background the petitioner preferred W.P.23546 of 11 seeking to quash the orders passed by the DRP dated 28.9.11 and the orders of the TPO dated 26.10.10 and the draft assessment order dated 31.12.10. A separate Writ Petition challenging the assessment order dated 12.10.11 was preferred in WP. No. 24976 of 2011. 4. The Petitioner in the above writ petitions sought to quash the above cited proceedings mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It was alleged by the petitioner that whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made there under. This aspect is evident from the fact that eight comparables were added at the instance of the Petitioner to the various filters for re-computing the income which was made at ₹ 110.27 crores and consequently reduced to ₹ 57.05 crores. Thus, the impugned order and dated 29.01.15 is not a ritualistic order as alleged by the petitioner but in effect is a well reasoned order made in due compliance with the directions of this Hon ble Court as well as the provisions of the Act. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner by raising a fresh plea for change in methodology for determination of ALP is nothing but an attempt to put the clock back and keep the matters pending for perpetuity. As stated above, the only issue in the writ petition related to non furnishing of information/material collected u/s 133(6) of the Act for adopting TNM Method for computing the ALP of the Petitioner s international transaction. Therefore, based on the above plea, this Court has directed to furnish the same. Hence the petitioner cannot now agitate an issue, for which no direction was given by the Hon ble Court in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785, wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court has impressed upon the need for recording of appropriate reasons in orders and held as under:- 14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of theauthorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders... 11. The learned senior counsel also relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 12.Going by the complexities thus involved in the second respondent arriving at his decision on the assessee s transaction as not at arm s length, on the limited question of compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the basic principle of natural justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I feel that it is otherwise a fit case wherein this Court should set aside the order of the second respondent and consequently that of the Dispute Resolution Board so as to enable the petitioner to have the particulars furnished as sought for by the petitioner in its reply dated 28.9.2010 and 20.10.2010 before the second respondent so that the opportunity of filing an objection remains a real and effective opportunity and not a paper opportunity. 13. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the second respondent, consequently that of the first respondent. Accordingly, the order passed by the first and second respondents dated 28.9.2011 and 26.10.2010 respectively are set aside. 14. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice and this Court remits the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ethod is the appropriate method for benchmarking transactions with Citi Group and some of its comparables also meet the filters adopted by the TPO and hence, they should also be considered while determining the Arm s length revenue. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel, in my opinion, does not merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that this Court has set aside the earlier assessment made by the Assessing Officer based on the TPO s findings who selected comparables in its order, dated 26.10.2010. However, it is pertinent to note that the order, dated 15.11.2011 passed by this Court without going into the merits of issues involved in the writ petitions. In para 12, the learned Judge has specifically stated that without expressing any opinion on the merits, I feel that it is otherwise a fit case wherein, this Court should set aside the order . Therefore, when the earlier draft assessment order was not dealt with on merits, but set aside only on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered view that there is absolutely nothing wrong in adopting the comparables selected by the TPO in erstwhile order, dated 26.10.2010 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
