9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious contentions along with evidence to that effect is not justified. The reasoning is the soul of the order, which is missing in this case. Such an approach cannot be encouraged. The essence of principles of natural justice is to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after hearing, the same should be duly incorporated in the order of judicial authority. In the absence of reasoned finding on the contentions/evidence of the assessee, the order amounts to nonspeaking one which cannot be upheld. See Atotech India Ltd [ 2011 (1) TMI 112 - ITAT, DELHI] AND M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [ 2012 (8) TMI 590 - ITAT, MUMBAI] AND GEODIS OVERSEAS (P) LTD. [ 2011 (3) TMI 860 - ITAT, DELHI] So following the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed DCIT has erred both on facts and in law in taking the returned income at Rs.9,11,99,130/- instead of Rs. 8,97,24,006/- declared by the assessee. (ii). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DCIT has erred both on facts and in law in assessing the income at Rs.13,91,00,800/- as against Rs.8,97,24,006/- declared by the assessee. 5(i). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DCIT has erred both on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.4,73,14,991/- as difference in arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, (ii). That the above addition has been made ignoring the detailed transfer pricing study made by the appellant for determining the arm's length price. 6. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of TPO has been perused. The objection raised before us has been answered by TPO in para 7.4 and 7.7. The order needs no directions. Ground No.5 relates to Rs.5,63,234/- in the fact of the case have been related is as under: - During the financial year 2004-05 relevant to assessment year 2005-06, the assessee company has made sales to Escorts Ltd. for a sum of Rs.19,08,23,179/- at a particular price. However the price for the same was settled in the current financial year, whereby there was a reduction by Rs.5,63,234/- accordingly the assessee company allowed rebate to Escorts Ltd. to that extent. Since the rebate on account of adjustment in price has taken place during the year under consideration financial year 2005-06 i.e. as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us, the fact is otherwise as the assessee has raised further arguments, gave further evidence before the DRP. In such a situation, upholding the order of TPO ignoring various contentions along with evidence to that effect is not justified. The reasoning is the soul of the order, which is missing in this case. Such an approach cannot be encouraged. The essence of principles of natural justice is to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after hearing, the same should be duly incorporated in the order of judicial authority. In the absence of reasoned finding on the contentions/evidence of the assessee, the order amounts to nonspeaking one which cannot be upheld. This view is fortified by the decision of ITAT Delhi A B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case. In the present case also, it is admitted position that as per Appendix-10 to Form No. 35A filed before DRP, various factual and legal arguments against the addition proposed by the AO has been raised by the assessee which run into almost nine pages and in the impugned order, the DRP has made no comments about those arguments of the assessee and the matter has been disposed of by way of cryptic and non speaking order. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the DRP under s. 144C is being reproduced below: We have considered the arguments of the assessee's representative and also the order of the TPO/AO. It is held that the amount is a transaction under subclause of s. 92F(v). Assessee has himself suggested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, we do not make any comment about the merits of the case. Needless to say, the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. We would also like to observe that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Vodafone Essar Ltd. (supra), it was held that for a quasi judicial authority, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter and further the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum. These observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court should be kept in mind by DRP and should be followed while disposing of the matter. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
