Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1310 - AT - Income TaxTPA - whether AO should have decided the issue of international transaction himself instead of referring it to Transfer Pricing Officer as the quantum of International Transaction is below the monetary limit of ₹ 5 crore? - Held that:- The Special Bench of this Tribunal in case of Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. vs. ACIT [2007 (7) TMI 50 - ITAT BANGALORE] held that CBDT directions are mandatory and binding on the Assessing Officer and CIT. Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that “Section 116 of the Act also defines the income-tax authorities as different and distinct authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with law as per the powers given to them in specified circumstances. If powers conferred on a particular authority are arrogated by other authority without mandate of law, it will create chaos in the administration of law and hierarchy of administration will mean nothing. Satisfaction of one authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of the other authority. It is trite that when a statue requires, a thing to be done in a certain manner, it shall be done in that manner alone and the court would not expect its being done in some other manner.” Additional Ground of the assessee is allowed. At this juncture, the assessment has become time barred as the reference made to TPO itself is not sustainable and the Assessing Officer should have passed Assessment Order at the prescribed time provided under the statute. We are not deciding on the merit of the case as the additional ground is decided in favour of the assessee.
|