Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 486 - ITAT DELHIAssessment u/s 144 - rejection of books of accounts - order of DRP u/s 144C - Held that:- DRP allowed the assessee to produce books of accounts and other related books and vouchers before the AO, hence, the AO is duty bound to accept the same during the remand proceedings and merely because the assessee had not accounted the additional custom duty paid and the AO had short span of time for verification of books of accounts and related bills and vouchers, the books of accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected. We also hold that when the DRP is allowing the assessee submission of books of accounts, then it is not open for the AO to examine the sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to submit books of acoutns during draft assessment proceedings. Thus inclined to hold that the action of the AO rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee is not based on justified and legal reasoning, hence, ground of the assessee is allowed. Refusal to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee - Held that:- DRP has allowed the assessee to submit its books of accounts and other relevant bills and vouchers before the AO during remand proceedings, hence, unable to accept this contention of the assessee that the DRP refused or declined to admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee being devoid of merits is dismissed. Transfer pricing adjustment - Addition to the income - difference between the value of MRP declared to custom authorities and the value of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) altered by the assessee on account of products sold by it to the Indian AE - Held that:- TPO through its order dated 28.2.2014 passed u/s 154 of the Act rectifying the DRP assessment order dated 26.12.2013 have held that the assessee paid ₹ 31,10,33,139/- for the purchases made from its AE as against ₹ 35,29,83,970/- which is the ALP worked out in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(b) of the Act and the price paid by the assessee for purchases being lower than the ALP worked out therein, no adjustment on this account is being made. Thus, we further hold that the AO/DRP is duty bound to pass an order in this regard in conformity with the value determined by the AO and the provisions of the Act do not allow this authority to take a different stand or view against the order of the TPO. We also note that the sales shown by the assessee to Tianjin India has been accepted by the AO in the case of purchaser i.e. Tianjin India, hence, the sales made by the assessee cannot be disturbed by baseless estimation in the name of suppressed sales as wrongly alleged by the Revenue. Thus reach to a logical conclusion that the estimation of suppressed sale made by the AO of the assessment order dated 13.1.2014 is not justified, cogent and acceptable and further hold that the DRP was not right in upholding the draft assessment order on this issue. Accordingly, ground of the assessee are allowed. Ad hoc addition made by the AO on estimated basis - Held that:- When rejection of books of accounts by the AO is not valid and justified, then the impugned ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the expenditure claimed by the assessee, as proposed by the AO, is not sustainable and held to be without any basis. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the DRP was right in deleting impugned ad hoc disallowance of ₹ 92,65,306/- being 10% of total expenses claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same
|