DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Myunghwa Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

MA 279/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5379 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKARA NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Valuation report
• Section: 92C; 92D

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , %& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NOS.279/MDS/2016 IN I.T.A.NO.658/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI -34 VS M/S. MYUNGHWA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD., 112, SINGADIVAKKAM VILLAGE, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT- 631560 PAN:AAFCM2148H (PETITIONER) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL.CIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANKARA NARAYANAN.S, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA N O.658/MDS/2015 DATED 07.04.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED U /S.256 R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT. 2 MP NOS.279/MDS/2016 2. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER HAD DIRECTED THE LD. AO TO REFER THE CASE TO THE TPO FO R OBTAINING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE USED LCI LINE MACHINERY FRO M THE LD. DVO. HOWEVER, THE LD. TPO VIDE HER REPORT DATED 14.09.16 OPINED THAT SHE IS NOT EMPOWERED WITH THE NECESSARY POWERS U/S. 142A O F THE ACT, SINCE THE AUTHORITIES MENTIONED THEREIN DOES NOT INCLUDE TPO. IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL MAY BE MODIFIED BY REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE LD.AO WITH FURTHER D IRECTION TO OBTAIN THE VALUATION OF THE USED MACHINERY FROM THE LD.DVO. 3. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE EVEN THE CBDT IN ITS INSTRUCTION N O.5/2011 [F.NO.2256/61/2011-IT(A-II)] DATED 30.03.2011HAS BR OUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ITS OFFICERS REGARDING THE DIRECTION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT WHICH MANDATED EVEN THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICERS TO OBTA IN THE OPINION OF THE TECHNICAL EXPERTS WHILE DEALING WITH COMPLEX TECHNI CAL ISSUES. HENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE R EVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. EXPLANATIO N TO SECTION 92CA 3 MP NOS.279/MDS/2016 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER MEANS A JOINT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMI SSIONER OR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD TO P ERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFIED IN SECTION 92C & 92D IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS. THEREFORE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE LD. TPO HAS POWER U/S. 142A OF THE ACT TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE LD. DVO. MOREOVER AS POINT OUT BY THE LD. AR, T HE LD. TPO IS BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO REFER MATTERS REQUIRING TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO TECH NICAL EXPERTS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 08 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED 08 TH MARCH, 2017 JR . !'# $%' /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. & ( $#! ) /CIT(A) 4. & /CIT 5. '() * /DR 6. )+ ! /GF.