Bombay High Court Quashes Assessment Orders for Violation of Natural Justice in Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Failure to Provide TPO's Draft Order and Opportunity of Hearing Renders Proceedings Void Ab Initio Under Sections 144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act, 1961.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2015-2016 on 30 September 2015 declaring a loss of Rs.11,69,32,126/-. The return was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The TPO passed an order dated 30 October 2018 under Section 92CA(3) proposing an adjustment of Rs.11,92,16,671/- to the arm's length price of international transactions. However, the TPO did not provide a copy of this draft order to the petitioner. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) on 28 December 2018, which was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 28 January 2019. The DRP, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed directions under Section 144C(5) on 16 September 2019. Based on these directions, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) on 31 October 2019. The petitioner challenged both orders by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the TPO's draft order was never provided to the petitioner, and the DRP did not afford any hearing before issuing directions. The court held that the failure to provide the TPO's draft order and the lack of opportunity of hearing before the DRP violated the mandatory requirements of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed both the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the stage of the TPO's draft order, directing the TPO to provide a copy of the draft order to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The court also directed that the petitioner be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the DRP.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Violation of Natural Justice - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged assessment orders on the ground that the TPO's draft order was not provided and no opportunity of hearing was given before the DRP. The court held that failure to provide the draft order and opportunity of hearing vitiates the proceedings as they are mandatory under Section 144C and principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-13)

B) Income Tax - Transfer Pricing - Draft Order - Opportunity of Hearing - Sections 92CA, 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - The TPO passed a draft order proposing adjustment without providing a copy to the assessee. The DRP passed directions without hearing the assessee. The court held that the assessee has a right to receive the draft order and be heard before the DRP; non-compliance renders the orders void ab initio. (Paras 3-13)

C) Income Tax - Assessment - Dispute Resolution Panel - Mandatory Hearing - Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - The DRP passed directions under Section 144C(5) without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court held that the DRP must provide a hearing before issuing directions; failure to do so violates the statutory scheme and natural justice. (Paras 5-13)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the assessment orders passed under Section 144C(5) and Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are valid when the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the draft order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and was not given an opportunity of hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 16/09/2019 and 31/10/2019, and remanded the matter back to the stage of the TPO's draft order. The TPO was directed to provide a copy of the draft order to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner was also directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the DRP.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • audi alteram partem
  • transfer pricing adjustment
  • draft order
  • opportunity of hearing
  • Section 144C
  • Section 92CA
  • Income Tax Act
  • 1961
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 29

WRIT PETITION NO.2387 OF 2020

2023-09-12

K. R. SHRIRAM, DR. N. K. GOKHALE

2023:BHC-AS:27307-DB

Mr. Riyaz Padvekar a/w. Mr. Tanzil Padvekar and Ms. Tejal Kharkar for petitioner, Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents

Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd.

Dispute Resolution Panel – 3, (WZ) Mumbai; Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kolhapur; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Kolhapur; Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging assessment orders passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 144C(5) dated 16/09/2019 and Respondent No.2 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) dated 31/10/2019 as without valid authority of law, illegal and void ab initio.

Filing Reason

Petitioner challenged the assessment orders on the ground that the Transfer Pricing Officer's draft order was not provided to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given before the Dispute Resolution Panel passed its directions.

Issues

Whether the failure to provide the TPO's draft order to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirements of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Whether the Dispute Resolution Panel's failure to grant an opportunity of hearing before issuing directions under Section 144C(5) renders the subsequent assessment order void ab initio?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the TPO's draft order was never provided to it, and the DRP did not give any hearing before passing directions, violating natural justice and Section 144C. Respondents argued that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and was aware of the adjustments, and the DRP was not required to give a hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to provide the TPO's draft order to the assessee and the lack of opportunity of hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel violate the mandatory requirements of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.

Judgment Excerpts

The TPO passed an order dated 30th October 2018 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act proposing an adjustment of Rs.11,92,16,671/- to the arm's length price. However, the TPO did not provide a copy of this draft order to the petitioner. The DRP, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed directions under Section 144C(5) on 16th September 2019. The failure to provide the TPO's draft order and the lack of opportunity of hearing before the DRP violate the mandatory requirements of Section 144C and principles of natural justice.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed return for AY 2015-16 on 30.09.2015. Scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) issued on 12.04.2016. Reference to TPO under Section 92CA(1). TPO passed draft order on 30.10.2018 without providing copy to petitioner. Assessing Officer issued draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) on 28.12.2018. Petitioner filed objections before DRP on 28.01.2019. DRP passed directions under Section 144C(5) on 16.09.2019 without hearing. Final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 31.10.2019. Writ petition filed on 2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 139(1)/(3), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 92A, Section 92CA(1), Section 92CA(3), Section 144C(1), Section 144C(5), Section 144C(13)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Assessment Orders for Violation of Natural Justice in Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Failure to Provide TPO's Draft Order and Opportunity of Hearing Renders Proceedings Void Ab Initio Under Sections 144C and 92CA of Income Tax...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Allows Writ Petition Seeking Reassessment of Customs Duty Due to Typographical Error in Customs Tariff Heading. Petitioner's Inadvertent Error in Declaring CTH 85176990 Instead of 85176930 for Routers Entitles Correction Under Cu...