Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
M/S. P.B. Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 28 February, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य केसम&
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3164/Mds/2016
नधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year : 2012-13
M/s PB Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of
11, II Floor, Rosy Towers, v. Income Tax,
7, Nungambakkam High Road, Corporate Circle 5(2),
Chennai - 600 034. Chennai.
PAN : AACCP 1464 E
(अपीलाथ,/Appellant) (-.यथ,/Respondent)
अपीलाथ, क/ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
-.यथ, क/ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna,
Jr. Standing Counsel
सन
ु वाई क/ तार
ख/Date of Hearing : 23.01.2018
घोषणा क/ तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer passed consequent to the direction of the DRP for the assessment year 2012-13.
2 I.T.A. No.3164/Mds/16
2. Shri N.V. Balaji, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was upward adjustment of ₹2,22,09,189/- to the arm's length price determined in respect of international transaction with Associated Enterprises. According to the Ld. counsel, the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the DRP rejected the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the assessee and proceeded to consider fresh set of comparables for determining the arm's length price. According to the Ld. counsel, the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the DRP failed to consider the turnover filter in the process of identifying the comparables, therefore, the comparables adopted by the TPO and the DRP cannot be considered for comparables for the purpose of determining the arm's length price. Since new set of comparables were selected by the TPO and DRP, according to the Ld. counsel, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
3. We heard Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, the Ld. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. The Ld. Standing counsel very fairly submitted that he had no objection in remitting back the matter to the authorities below to consider the matter afresh on the basis of the material available on record without any restriction. 3 I.T.A. No.3164/Mds/16
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Since the selection of comparables is in dispute, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the original authority has to reconsider the matter as rightly submitted by the Ld. Standing counsel for the assessee. The original authority has to reconsider the matter afresh without any restriction. Accordingly, the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall refer the matter once again to the TPO for re-examination. TPO shall re- examine the matter and give opportunity to the assessee in respect of comparables selected and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
5. It is open to the assessee to file objection, if any, on the order of the TPO and if such an objection is filed, the matter shall be referred to the DRP for reconsideration.
6. With the above observation, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
4 I.T.A. No.3164/Mds/16
Order pronounced on 28th February, 2018 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
5दनांक/Dated, the 28 February, 2018.
Kri.
आदे श क/ - त6ल7प अ8े7षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ,/Appellant
2. -.यथ,/Respondent
3. Principal CIT-5, Chennai
4. आयकर आयु9त (अपील)/CIT(TP-2), Chennai
5. Secretary, DRP-2, Bengaluru
5. 7वभागीय - त न ध/DR
6. गाड( फाईल/GF.