9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi vide order dated 23.11.2011 by which the DRP-II rejected the objections raised by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to proceed further and complete the assessment as proposed in the Draft Assessment Order (for short the DAO ). 2. The grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in proposing to complete the assessment under section 144C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at an income of ₹ 2,66,61,089 as against income of ₹ 3417 returned by the appellant. 2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in making an addition of ₹ 2,66,61,089 on account of difference in the arm s length price of the international transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the assessee filed an application for additional evidence before the DRP-II, New Delhi but the same was not duly considered and decided by the DRP and impugned orders by the DRP-II and subsequently by the Assessing Officer were passed without considering the additional evidence which was relevant to decide the controversy involved in the assessment proceedings. We noted that a copy of above application dated 16.11.2011 has also been filed before us. 5. Ld. counsel appearing before us relied upon the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010 dated 14.1.2011 wherein their Lordships held that the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pronounce judgment on the state of record as it was, and so it could not strictly say that it required additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained ITA Nos.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010 Page 11 of 14 obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case would be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under rule 27(1)(b) of Order 41 of the Code. In the instant case, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the learned trial judge, it had been stated that the notice had been served by affixation at 8/1, Dacres Lane, Calcutta. 13. The aforesaid case law clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the additional evidence application. 7. The AR also submitted a copy of the judgement of ITAT, Delhi A Bench in the case of ACIT vs M/s NIT Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1844/Del/2009 and 1871/D/2009 for AY 2005-06 wherein the ITAT held as being reproduced below:- 10. After considering the assessee s application and keeping in mind the fact that these details now submitted before us were not available tin the public domain at the time when transfer pricing study was submitted by the assessee or at the later stage when transfer pricing assessment proceedings were taken by the TPO and having regard to the fact that these documents are essential for determining arm s length price of the international transaction effected by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make a reference to the TPO ion respect of the matters involved in this appeal to pass afresh order after considering all the comparables in the light of the various parameters laid down by the various courts from time to time. The assessee shall be under an obligation to furnish all these details that have been submitted before us, before the TPO to enable him to consider them for his decision. This understanding was given at the time when the hearing of these appeals had taken place. We order accordingly. 8. In the present case on bare reading of impugned order of DRP-II, New Delhi and impugned order, we observe that these authorities did not consider the additional evidence adduced by the assessee with application dated 16.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
