2011 (12) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer pricing - Order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - Non-speaking order - Held that - when a quasi judicial authority deals with a lis 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. - Order of DRP quashed - Matter remanded back for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for writ of certiorari to quash order of Dispute Resolution Panel-II.

Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Manmohan, heard a writ petition seeking the quashing of an order dated 30th September, 2010, passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-II. The petitioner requested a writ of certiorari for the quashment of the said order. During the proceedings, the counsel for the revenue, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, agreed that the order in question should be quashed, and the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the court quashed the order dated 30th September, 2010, and remanded the matter to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. The court emphasized the importance of a quasi-judicial authority providing cogent and germane reasons for their decisions, as this is crucial for a proper understanding of the matter and for facilitating review by a superior forum. Additionally, the court directed the competent authority to consider the exclusion of time as per a previous order while computing the limitation for passing an assessment order. The writ petition was allowed without any costs being imposed.

In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi granted the writ petition, quashed the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-II, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The court highlighted the necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to provide clear and relevant reasons for their decisions and directed the competent authority to consider the exclusion of time as per a previous order while computing the limitation for passing an assessment order. The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Manmohan, with Mr. M.S. Syali representing the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal representing the revenue.