TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2016-17. 3.W.P.No.35246 of 2019 was filed challenging the draft order under Section 144C of the Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 27.11.2019. 4.The appellant filed their return of income on 15.10.2016, for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2016-17. Notice dated 27.07.2017, was issued under Section 143(2) by the first respondent, the Assessing Officer, which mentions the issue, which has been identified for examination as to whether "value of international transactions is correctly shown in Form 3CEB and the return of income". Subsequently, the TPO issued notice dated 19.12.2018, stating that a reference has been received under Section 92CA(1) of the Act from the first respondent to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA(3) in respect of international transactions entered into by the appellant/assessee during the financial year 2015-16. The appellant was directed to produce evidence or material, which they may rely upon in support of computation made by them of ALP of the international transactions. 5.In paragraph 3 of the notice dated 19.12.2018, the list of information and documents, which the assessee was required to furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29.03.2019, by order dated 14.03.2019. Subsequently, the interim order was not extended. The TPO has passed an order dated 31.10.2019, under Section 92CA(3) of the Act determining the ALP of the international transactions. 8.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai, issued notice dated 25.11.2019, to the assessee informing them that they have received the order of the TPO dated 31.10.2019 and that the Department is not in possession of any order staying the proceedings as on the said date and if there is any order of stay granted in the assessee's case, the same may be communicated to the Department on or before 27.11.2019. In response to the said notice, the assessee by reply dated 27.11.2019, informed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax that when the writ petition was posted for hearing, for extension of stay, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department submitted that an assessment order was already passed for the assessment year 2016-17 and therefore, the writ petition (W.P.No.5760 of 2019) is infructuous. 9.Further, the assessee stated that their counsel objected to the passing of the assessment order, when the writ petition was pendin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Delhi & Ors., [AIR 1978 SC 851]. Further, in response to the query raised by the Court qua, the finding rendered by the learned Single Bench in paragraph 13 of the impugned order that the assessee had cooperated and participated in the assessment proceedings and has also filed objections to the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which is pending, as to how the appellant would be justified in prosecuting these appeals as already, the assessee is before the DRP raising all contentions. Mr.N.V.Balaji, would respond by referring to Section 144C(8) and submit that the issue raised in the writ petitions cannot be agitated before the DRP, nor adjudicated by the DRP and therefore, the assessee is justified in prosecuting these appeals. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Single Bench ought to have granted the relief sought for in the writ petitions. 15.Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, would submit that the understanding of the appellant/assessee is wholly incorrect and this has been clearly brought out in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and it is not a case, where the Assessing Officer was denuded of jurisdiction to make a reference to the TPO. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer, being not competent to examine the said issue, necessarily, the case has to be referred to the TPO as per Section 92CA of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention of the appellant/assessee that the case was selected for mere reconciliation is an incorrect interpretation. This is clear from the reason for which the case was selected for scrutiny and the issue arising there from. Thus, we find that there is no violation of the instructions issued by the CBDT. 20.In our considered view, the learned Single Bench rightly took note of these aspects as well as paragraph 3.4 of the CBDT Instruction No.15/2015, which states that the issue on which a reference was thought to be necessary, has to be explicitly mentioned in the Assessing Officer's letter seeking reference to the TPO and such letter of the Assessing Officer dated 17.07.2018, was found to have complied with the said condition. The said letter is as follows:- "PAN: AADCT4603N/2018-19 &....