PRICE AND BUCKLAND (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA V. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2)(1), NOIDA, NOIDA

ITTPA 1/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Learned Assessing Officer concerning additions made to their income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The additions were related to alleged bogus purchases and transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses, including the non-submission of documents by the assessee due to the death of the Indian director and the assessee's absence from India, which affected the fairness of the previous hearings. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the earlier orders and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833605 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.K. JADHAV
• Assessee Lawyers: LAKSHAY BUDHIRAJA
• Keywords: Set aside; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Depreciation; Bogus purchase; Borrowed satisfaction; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITTPA No. 1/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd, Tax, A-22, Hosiery Complex, Noida Phase II, Noida Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201301 Vs. DCIT, Circle 5(2)(1) Reliance Energy, Block A, Tulsi Marg, Sector – 24, Noida Uttar Pradesh – 201307 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCP7225G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Lakshay Budhiraja, CA Department by : Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 14.07.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘The CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 18.06.2021 of Ld. Assessing Officer/National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) read with section 144B of the Act for AY: 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 15.11.2017 at total income of Rs.37,08,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for reasons “Foreign Remittance, International Transaction (s) and Depreciation Claim”. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) were issued. Draft assessment order u/s 144C dated 15.04.2021 was issued to the assessee for compliance but he failed to do so. On completion of proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 18.06.2021 made additions of Rs.64,40,011/- and Rs.41,00,000/-. 3. Against the order dated 18.06.2021 of ld. AO assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2025. 4. Being aggrieved appellant assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (LD. CIT(A)) has erred in law and on facts by rejecting the appeal of the appellant purely on conjectures and surmises, by erroneously citing non-submission of written submissions by the Appellant. 2. That the impugned addition of Rs.41,00,000 made by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of the factual matrix of the case of the appellant vis- à-vis payment made to creditors for the alleged purchases made during the year under consideration and not disturbing the sales. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously relied upon the information received from investigation wing without making any independent enquiry which is nothing but borrowed satisfaction for upholding the addition of Rs.41,00,000 on account of alleged bogus purchases made by the appellant. 4. That the impugned addition of Rs.41,00,000 made by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of the opportunity to cross-examination in absence of which the impugned addition of Rs.41,00,000 is not sustainable. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO for making the upward addition of Rs.64,40,011 basis the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) by considering operating margin of 3.22 percent for making Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment ignoring the actual margin earned by the appellant. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO for making the addition of Rs.64,40,011 brushing aside the fact that the conditions specified in Clause (a) to Clause (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) have not been satisfied. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO in making the impugned addition of Rs.64,40,011 brushing aside the fact that conditions specified in Clause (a) to Clause (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) have not been satisfied. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Rs.64,40,011 made by the Ld. TPO basis the comparable companies being functionally and economically different qua the business profile of the Appellant. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO for making addition of Rs.64,40,011 basis the TPO's order relying on companies having irregular turnover and non-typical margin. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO for making the impugned addition of Rs.64,40,011 by not allowing the benefit of (+1) 5% as provided in the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant. That the appellant craves leave for addition/modification/deletion of any ground of appeal before or during the time of hearing.” Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) 5. Ld. Authorized Representatives for appellant assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) while passing ex-parte order failed to appreciate that the documents uploaded on portal during the assessment proceedings concerning the alleged bogus purchases (the assessment order mentions non-compliance and absence of documents on the portal; relevant screenshots are attached). Assessee was out of India and Indian director of assessee had died during Covid Reference to page No. 5 i.e. screen shot and copy of death certificate page No. 66 of paper book is important. So the matter be restored to the file of ld. AO. 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that despite several opportunities by ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to submit the documents. 7. From the examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention it is crystal clear that in response to notices assessee submitted replies before ld. CIT(A) but failed to submit documents or written submissions before ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) vide order date 14.07.2025 decided the appeal for non-filing of documents in support of grounds of appeal. Assessee was out of India, and Indian director of company Shri Naveen Thapliyal died on 09.05.2021. In view of above material facts in the interest of justice it is considered Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1/Del/2025 Price And Buckland (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) expedient to set aside the order dated 14.07.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) ad 18.06.2021 of Ld. AO and restore the matter to the file of ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2026 Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) Sd/- (Vimal Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 03.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "