TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short order passed in general terms on both the issues involved, i.e., arm’s length price u/s 92CA(3) and excess depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals. The objections raised by the assessee before the ld. DRP have not been discussed in detail - Remit this matter to the file of the DRP, to be decided afresh in accordance with the law by passing a speaking order on affording adequate and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee - ITA No.4438/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2012 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JJ. Assessee by : S/Shri G.C. Srivastava Manoneet Dalal, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Ram Bilas Meena, Sr.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dequate justification for doing so. 4. the TPO/A.O. has erred in rejecting 9 out of the 14 companies considered as comparables by the assessee without providing sufficient basis for rejecting them. 5. the DRP has erred in not considering the correct margin computation of Crisil Limited as submitted during the proceedings. 6. the TPO/A.O. has erred in determining the arm s length margin/price using only financial year 2005-06 data which was not available to the assessee at the time of complying with the Transfer Pricing documentation requirements. Further, the TPO has erred in using single year data pertaining to financial year 2005-06 as against multiple year data used by the Appellant. 7. the TPO/A.O. has erred by not making approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiry from the DRP that the assessee became aware, on 06.09.2010, about the assessment order having not been received in the assessee s office; that it was thereafter, that the appeal was filed on 05.10.2010, incurring a delay of 53 days, the limitation for filing the appeal having expired on 13.08.2010. 3. The affidavit of the aforesaid Clerk, Shri Anil Kumar, has been filed, supporting the application for condonation of delay. Besides, an affidavit of Shri Rajiv Khanna, Authorised Representative of the assessee company, has also been filed. 4. From the afore-detailed contents of the application for the condonation of delay, we find that delay of 53 days in filing the appeal has occurred due to the inadvertence of the Clerk of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to arrive at arithmetical mean, and most importantly the margin of the Crisil Limited for financial year 2005-06 has been mentioned in the order as 17.39% percent though the correct margin is stated to be worked out at 11.55%. The DRP has considered the arguments placed by the assessee company and also perused the material on record. It is seen that the TPO/A.O completed entire exercise after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The arguments at this stage are basically reiteration of submissions made during the assessment proceedings which have adequately been considered. As regards the argument that margin of Crisil Limited is at 1.55% instead of 17.39% we have seen the working provided in support. Prima facie it is case of allocati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed its order by just relying on the findings recorded by the A.O./TPO, without considering the various objections raised before it by the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee, in this regard, has placed reliance on Vodafon Essar Ltd. vs. Dispute Resolution Panel-II , 240 CTR 263 (Del), wherein it has been held that when a quasi judicial authority like the DRP deals with a lis u/s 144C, then, it is obligatory on its part to give cogent reasons for the decision. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on a decision dated 29.12.2011 rendered by the Tribunal in ITA Nos.4362 and 3990/Del/2010, for A.Y. 2006-07 in the case of American Express Services India Ltd. vs. ACIT , copies whereof have been placed on record, co-authored by one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
