9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order dated December 26, 2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interests of the revenue and its observations and findings in this regard are erroneous, contrary to law and perverse ? ii) Whether the order dated February 7, 2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous, contrary to law, perverse and/or without jurisdiction ? iii) Whether the CIT was justified in merely setting aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nges upon the discretion given to the Assessing Officer under section 92CA of the Act to refer cases to the Transfer Pricing Officer in cases which he considers it to be necessary or expedient ? viii) Whether the assessment order dated December 26, 2016 can be said to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for not referring the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer when the Assessing Officer himself had examined Form 3CEB and the appellant's transactions with associated enterprises ? We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standing Counsel for the respondent. The order impugned b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings. C) Deduction of TDS u/s 194IA of the Act in the Form 26AS suggests sale of any immovable property other than agricultural land. However, no capital gain/loss was booked on account of such sale. Neither fixed asset statement of the assessee indicates any such sale. D) It is seen that the assessee made adjustments on account of arms length mark up. However, the case was not referred to TPO. As per Para 3.2 of CBDT's Instruction No. 3 of 2016, the instant case had to be mandatorily referred to the TPO (the Transfer Pricing Officer) by the A.O after obtaining the approval of Principal CIT. However, the A.O has completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 26-12-2016 without referring the matter to Transfer Pricing officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the letter contains as many as seventeen annexures. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the order passed by the PCIT is a non speaking order. The assesee being aggrieved carried the matter up to the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is also a non speaking order of course the learned Tribunal could not be faulty because it was testing the correctness of the order which was without reasons. This conclusion would be sufficient for us to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, we note after the order was passed by the PCIT it giving effect to an order passed by the assessing officer dated 28th November, 2019 in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
