Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ally incorrect and has drawn our attention to the letter of the assessee dated 20th December, 2016, from which we find not only the assessee has submitted on the merits of the matter but pointed out the legal position and 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated September 17, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata in ITAT No. 1265/Kol/2019 for the assessment 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arch 10, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes renders the power bestowed upon the Assessing Officer under section 92C(3) of the Act to determine the arm s length price otiose and impinges 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. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .16. However, as per 26AS total receipts were of Rs.1,32,40,556/- as against the disclosed income of Rs.78L (approx). Hence, the A.O. failed to reconcile or add the difference during the course of assessment 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 P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ally incorrect and has drawn our attention to the letter of the assessee dated 20th December, 2016, from which we find not only the assessee has submitted on the merits of the matter but pointed out the legal position and 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates