S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

Respondent No.1 is the Assessing Officer and respondent No.2, also a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, is the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the reference by the first respondent to the second respondent-Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the satisfaction recorded by the first respondent for making the reference. The relief was sought on the ground that the provisions of Chapter-X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were not applicable to the international transactions undertaken by the petitioner as they were not with its associated enterprises within the meaning of that expression in the Act. It is contended, therefore, that the entire proceedings including the reference to the TPO for the assessment year 2011-12 is without jurisdiction and void.

3. By our interim order dated 29.08.2016 we recorded Ms. Radhika Suri’s statement that the petitioner would only raise legal submissions to the effect that before making a reference to the TPO to determine the arms length price of an international transaction the Assessing Officer is bound to grant the assessee an opportunity of showing cause against it including by a personal hearing, pass a reasoned order on the objections and serve the same.

4. In view of the limited scope of this petition it is necessary to state only those facts which are necessary for deciding the submissions.

5. Section 92A(1) of the Act reads as under:-

Meaning of associated enterprise

92A. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92B, 92C, 92D, 92E and 92F, "associated enterprise", in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise—

(a) which participates, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise; or

(b) in respect of which one or more persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in its management or control or capital, are the same persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise.

6. The first respondent by a notice dated 19.03.2016 called upon the petitioner to show cause why its cases for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 be not transferred to the TPO. The notice granted the petitioner a hearing. The notice referred to the earlier questionnaire issued by the Department in connection with the assessment proceedings under sections 153A, 153C and 142(1) of the Act and stated that during the course of a survey of the petitioner’s premises various documents were found and impounded. The notice further stated that the petitioner had made sales to its group companies M/s Haryana Trading Company, Dubai managed by one Kushal Mittal and M/s Indian Treat Pvt. Ltd. Singapore managed by one Sunny Mittal; that the sales to the sister concern were under invoiced with a view to evading tax and that profits from India were diverted to tax havens which were remitted back to India for investing in properties by said Kushal Mittal and his family members. The notice further stated that the Accountant’s report under section 92E in Form No. 3CEB was not furnished by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner by its letter dated 21.03.2016 filed its objections. The petitioner denied that it had under invoiced its exports. The petitioner also alleged that the remittances of said Kushal Mittal were in the normal course of business and were personal transactions with one Adarsh Kumar and M/s Vashudev Trading Company and that said Kushal Mittal was not directly or indirectly related to either the said Adarsh Kumar or M/s Vashudev Trading Company. Adarsh Kumar and M/s Vashudev Trading Company were shown in the bank statements tabulated in the show cause notice. It was further stated that neither M/s Haryana Trading Company, Dubai nor M/s Indian Treat Pvt. Ltd. Singapore were the petitioner’s associate ente