Basell Polyolefins India P. Ltd, Powai Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai ruling concerns Basell Polyolefins India Private Ltd. for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal challenges the final assessment order, which was passed following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). A key ground for appeal is that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) allegedly failed to issue a mandatory written show cause notice before passing the order, violating principles of natural justice.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘K‘ BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
&
SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

ITA No.1689/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2012-13)

M/s. Basell Polyolefins India Private Ltd., 303/305, Delphi B Wing Hiranandani Business Park Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai – 400706
PAN/GIR No. AACCB5368D
(Appellant)

Vs.

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Room No.483A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Madhur Agarwal
Revenue by Shri Shreenivasaraghava Iyengar
Date of Hearing 18/12/2020
Date of Pronouncement 30/12/2020
 
O R D E R 

PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): 

This appeal in ITA No.1689/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2012-13 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31/01/2017 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 25/11/2016 for the A.Y.2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 

“1. The order of the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Id. TPO") u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the consequent assessment order of the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") u/s. 143(3) read with section 144(13) of the Act, passed in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP"), is bad in law and void ab initio as it has been passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice and without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 92CA(3) r.w.s. 92C(3) of the Act for the reason that the Ld. TPO did not serve upon the Appellant any written show cause notice as required and mandated in terms of proviso to Section 92C(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act.

To know more in details find the attachment file