##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

justice as the mandatory Show Cause Notice required to be issued under Section 92CA(3) read with Section 92C(3) of the Act was not served on the Petitioner before passing the impugned order, and therefore, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard.

3. The facts relevant to the present petition are that the Petitioner's case for the relevant Assessment Year was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 2) referred the case of the Petitioner to Respondent No. 1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of the Arm's Length Price of international transactions entered into by the Petitioner with its Associated Enterprises (“AEs”).

4. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 issued notices under Section 92CA(2) of the Act from time to time asking for various information from the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed replies to the said notices. Respondent No.1, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 20^th March 2023 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. In the said order, Respondent No. 1 proposed an adjustment of Rs. 20,16,01,089/- to the Arm’s Length Price of various international transactions entered into by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 held that a Show Cause Notice dated 28^th February 2023 was issued by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner did not respond to the said Show Cause Notice. However, considering that during the last 12 months various statutory notices were issued by Respondent No. 1, no further opportunity is required to be given to the Petitioner in case of non-compliance with the Show Cause Notice. Further, one of the reasons given in the impugned order for making the transfer pricing adjustment was that the Petitioner has failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to support its claim of the Arm's Length Price for the international transactions entered into by it.

5. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 92C(3) of the Act is a statutory notice which is required to be issued to an Assessee before passing the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. He submitted that the Show Cause Notice was neither served on the Petitioner nor was the said Show Cause Notice uploaded in the Income- tax Portal of the Petitioner. The Petitioner came to know that a Show Cause Notice dated 28^th February 2023 under Section 92C(3) of the Act was issued only because the same was referred to in the impugned order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (Respondent No.1). He submitted that the initial notices which were issued to the Petitioner in response to which the Petitioner filed its replies were all notices issued under Section 92CA(2) of the Act calling for information from the Petitioner, whereas the notice dated 28^th February 2023 was a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 92C(3) of the Act. He submitted that the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 92C(3) of the Act cannot be compared to notices issued under Section 92CA(2) of the Act and merely because the notices under Section 92CA(2) of the Act have been served on the Petitioner, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice are complied with unless the notice issued under Section 92C(3) of the Act is also served on the Petitioner. He submitted that since the said statutory notice under Section 92C(3) of the Act was not served on the Petitioner, the Impugned Order has been passed clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice and, hence, liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that in the Affidavit-in-reply at paragraph 15, the Respondents have admitted that the said Show Cause Notice was not served on the email of the Petitioner as the said email had bounced. He further sub