MUNICH RE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T. CIR.6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 217/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2571 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Keywords: Transfer pricing

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO. 217/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 MUNICH RE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., 302, PENINSULA TOWER-1, PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013 / VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AADCM 8044N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: NONE / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. CHAND / DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :13.07.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-1, DATED 6.9.2012 PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 29,102,609/- MADE BY T HE ITA NO. 217/M/2013 2 ASSESSING OFFICER (' AO') BY AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT T O ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) AS PROPOSED BY THE TRANSFE R PRICING OFFICER ('TPO') FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ONS INVOLVING PROVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES BY THE APPE LLANT TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (' AE'). THE SAID ADDITIO N IS ERRONEOUSLY MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE DRP: (A) UNILATERALLY AND SUMMARILY REJECTING THE TRANSF ER PRICING STUDY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON SUBJECTIVE ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT S OF DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. (B) PASSING AN ORDER WHICH IS NOT BASED ON FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES BUT IS BASED ON ASSUMED STATEMENTS AN D/ OR FACTS OF OTHER CASES NOT CONNECTED WITH THE APPELLA NT. (C) PASSING AN ORDER WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND PURELY BASED ON GUESSWORK AND SURMISES. (D) SELECTING A FRESH SET OF COMPANIES WITHOUT CONS IDERING THEIR COMPARABILITY TO THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AND COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FUNCTIONS, ASSETS AND RISKS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN GIVING SHORT CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLAN T DURING AY 2008-09 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 335,673/. 3. INSPITE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON MERIT. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE DRP, WE FIND THA T THE ORDER IS VERY CRYPTIC AND NON SPEAKING ONE AND THE DRP HAS N OT DEALT WITH VARIOUS ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE IT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHY THE MATT ER SHOULD NOT BE SENT BACK TO THE DRP FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IN REMITTING THE ITA NO. 217/M/2013 3 MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE DRP. THUS, TAKING THE TO TALITY OF THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, WE RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE O F THE DRP WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE WITH DETAILED ORDER AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 13 TH JULY, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 217/M/2013 4