Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1486 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Non reference of transfer pricing related issues/specific domestic transactions to TPO - whether the A.O. is authorised by law to examine and compute arm’s length price related to ‘specified domestic transactions’? - effect of omission of 92BA(1) w.e.f. 1.4.2017 - HELD THAT:- Pr. CIT is of the view that the A.O. is under obligation to refer the issue to the Transfer pricing officer for computing the ALP. In the absence of the ALP computed by the TPO, the A.O. could not have adjudicated the issue. If in a given case sale is found to be within the ALP determined by the TPO, under such situation whether still there would be need to examine the ALP of purchases? This question has to be decided on the basis of the factual aspect of the matter. We find no finding on this issue. We are of the view that this aspect in the present case should have been examined. As contended by the assessee that assessee had entered into ‘specified domestic transactions’ but not in international transactions. Thus, the transaction would be governed by the provisions of section 92BA(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 92BA(1) of the Act has been omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2017. It is vehemently argued that the impact of omission of this provision would be that it has to be construed that such provision was never on the statute book.It is a settled principle that where provision is omitted, it should be deemed to have never been part of the statute at any point of time. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of General Finance Company Vs. ACIT [2002 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] . In view of the Ld. Pr. CIT is not correct. In view of the aforesaid discussion, moreover, the coordinate bench has also examined the issue in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (12) TMI 1719 - ITAT BANGALORE] . Admittedly, in this case, the order has been revised purely on the basis that the assessing officer has not referred to determine the arm’s length price to the TPO. Since the provision itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the Pr. CIT, under these undisputed facts in the light of the Judgement in the case of General Finance Company (supra) as well as the order of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained, hence is hereby quashed. The order impugned is thus quashed and the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed.
|