TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on 24.12.2008 and directed the assessee to explain by 26.12.2008. In this short period, assessee could not submit the reply and the Assessing Officer accordingly passed the assessment order before 31.12.2012 - sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. He has just provided two days time for explaining its position – matter remanded to Assessing Officer for readjudication - IT APPEAL NOS. 3268 & 4354 (DELHI) OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2012 - G.D. AGRAWAL AND RAJPAL YADAV, JJ. G.C. Srivastava for the Appellant. Vikas Suryavanshi for the Respondent. ORDER Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member - In assessment year 2006-07, assessee is challenging the assessment order passed under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PO to determine whether assessee has adopted arm's length price in respect of its transaction entered with the A.E. Learned TPO has passed an order under sec. 92CA(3) on 23.10.2009 and observed that the assessee has reported PLI of 12.16% (O.P. Over TC) whereas the average PLI of the comparables is 28.82%. In this way, learned Assessing Officer has observed that there is a difference of Rs. 92,63,786 which required to be added in the value of international transaction. Accordingly, she made the recommendations. Learned Assessing Officer has passed the draft assessment order whereby he accepted the recommendations made by the TPO. The assessee has filed objections. Learned DRP without referring the objections of the assessee upheld the draft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services, hence, its result cannot be compared with that of the assessee. Similarly, assessee has pointed out as to how Reliance Infrastructure and Consultant Ltd. could not be compared with the activities of the assessee. Learned D.R.P. has not made any reference about these objections of the assessee. Accordingly, he prayed that the issue be set aside to the file of the learned D.R.P. for readjudication. Learned D.R. on the other hand relied upon the order of the learned TPO and pointed out that all these objections have been looked into by the TPO and learned D.R.P. has accepted the order of the learned T.P.O. for the reasons assigned therein. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. On p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of income on 31.10.2005 declaring an income of Rs. 54,82,249. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under sec. 143(2) dated 12.6.2006 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice of hearing, Shri JS Sahni, CA appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and submitted the details. On scrutiny of the accounts, Assessing Officer found that there is a fall in the net profit ratio during the year as compared to the net profit in the earlier years. He found that in assessment year 2004-05, assessee has shown net profit at Rs. 66.85% whereas in the present year, net profit has been reported at 10.87%. On an analysis of the record, learned Assessing Officer found that thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer vide reply dated 12.12.2008 that assessee company was incorporated on 23.10.2001 as a subsidiary of Concerto Software Inc, USA. The parent company is engaged in the business of development of computer software and the assessee company acts its sale and support entity in India. In this year, there is a change in the policy of recognizing income due from its parents company. Up to March 31,2004, the assessee company was recognizing a part of sales which were marketed by the support team of the assessee company. However, towards the end of fiscal year 2005 and thereafter the parent company was in process of restructuring its operations and the role performed by the assessee got restricted to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the details in itself suggests that assessee has no justification for claiming such higher expenditure, when its turnover has been reduced drastically. We have considered these submissions and perused the record. It reveals from the assessment order that Assessing Officer has first time confronted the assessee on 2nd of December, 2008. It was supposed to file reply by 10.12.2008. The assessee has filed the reply on 12.12.2008. Again the Assessing Officer raised the query on 24.12.2008 and directed the assessee to explain by 26.12.2008. In this short period, assessee could not submit the reply and the Assessing Officer accordingly passed the assessment order before 31.12.2012, though the date of order is not discernible from the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
