Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment - TPO to arrive at Arm's length price as Nil - assessee submitted that they were unable to attend proceedings before the TPO and file necessary submissions with documentary evidences in support of the case on merits as was called for - HELD THAT - It is correct that the assessee has not complied with the directions of the Revenue Authorities and has not filed necessary documentations but also it is correct that the Revenue Authorities on their own has not made necessary efforts to arrive at the correct conclusion in respect of the Arm's length price of the transaction related to purchase of raw materials. DR has not disputed that the Ld. DRP considered only one submission of the assessee and other one was ignored though it was on record, the assessee had filed both the submissions through e-mails. Even in a case of best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, in a case where the assessee does not appear or does not provide proper evidences before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer provides reasons and completes the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. In this case, while arriving at Arm's length price as Nil, the Assessing Officer has not given any specific findings. Furthermore, the Ld. DRP has come out with the same findings upholding the order of the Assessing Officer/TPO. Sub-ordinate Authorities in their respective orders, have given no findings as regards the merits of the case and one of the reason for this that the assessee has not furnished necessary documentary evidences before the Revenue Authorities. Before us, the assessee has prayed for one final opportunity to represent his case on merits. In the interest of justice, one final opportunity should be provided to the assessee. The assessee is specifically directed to provide necessary details/evidences/documentation before the TPO as and when called for to represent his case on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the directions of the Ld. DRP and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for re-adjudication - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Disclosure of transaction as specified domestic or international. 2. Failure to maintain documentation for Arm's length price determination. 3. Discrepancy in consideration of submissions by Revenue Authorities. 4. Lack of proper examination by Revenue Authorities. 5. Request for one final opportunity to represent the case on merits. Issue 1: Disclosure of transaction as specified domestic or international. The appeal pertains to the disclosure of a transaction as specified domestic instead of international. The Taxation Officer (TPO) observed that the transaction with a Japanese entity should have been categorized as an international transaction. The TPO concluded that the assessee failed to justify the Arm's length price of the transactions, leading to an adjustment of the amount in question. Issue 2: Failure to maintain documentation for Arm's length price determination. The Revenue Authorities found that the assessee did not maintain the required documentation, as per statutory rules, to justify the Arm's length price of the transactions. This lack of documentation hindered the examination of whether the transactions were at Arm's length price. Consequently, penalty proceedings were directed under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance. Issue 3: Discrepancy in consideration of submissions by Revenue Authorities. The assessee claimed that the Revenue Authorities did not consider all the submissions made, leading to a discrepancy in the assessment process. The authorities dismissed objections due to the absence of supporting material or arguments, indicating a lack of proper consideration of the assessee's perspective. Issue 4: Lack of proper examination by Revenue Authorities. The Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not conduct a thorough examination of the facts and materials available before arriving at the conclusion of Nil Arm's length price. The lack of effort on the part of the Revenue Authorities to make necessary inquiries and assessments was highlighted, indicating a procedural lapse in the decision-making process. Issue 5: Request for one final opportunity to represent the case on merits. The assessee requested one final opportunity to present the case on merits, emphasizing the need for a fair chance to provide necessary details and evidence for the determination of the Arm's length price. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of natural justice and directed the matter to be remanded to the Assessing Officer/TPO for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit relevant documentation. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to represent their case on merits and directing compliance with the principles of natural justice in the re-adjudication process.
|