IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5356/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kunshan Q Tech DCIT Microelectronics (India) Vs Central Circle – 30 Pvt. Ltd. Delhi B-4, ECOTECH-1, Extension, Greater Noida Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201310 PAN No.AAHCK4396H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Pavan Ved, Advocate Sh. Mohit Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR Sh. Wageesh Shrotriya, ACIT-

CC-30 Date of hearing: 15/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20/01/2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 29.10.2024 for the A.Y.2021-22 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) in pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 13.09.2024 passed u/s.144C(5) of the IT Act. The assessee in its appeal raised the following grounds :-

“1. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) [Draft Assessment Order and Final Assessment Order), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) as well as the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and thus, void-ab-initio.

2. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. Members of the DRP have erred in law in determining the total income of the appellant at Rs. 3,53,43,56,141/- vide order u/s 143(3) r.พ.ร. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.10.2024 as against the returned loss of Rs. 98,71,60,760/- and thereby making erroneous additions of Rs.

4,44,75,24,909/-.

3. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the orders so framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.10.2024 as well as enabling orders (which are culminated in the said order dated 29.10.2024) are barred by, limitation in view of Sec. 153 r.w.s. 144C of the Act and hence, void-

ab-initio, therefore, needs to be quashed/ annulled.

4. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP have erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act by making erroneous, arbitrary and ad-hoc additions based on mere to Rs. and surmises amounting conjectures, suspicions 4,44,75,24,909/- without considering the submissions made by the appellant.

5. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP are devoid of the legal principles of audi alteram partem as the statements recorded of third parties(persons) or third party information have been used against the appellant without affording the reasonable opportunity of cross examination to the appellant to rebut the said testimony of the third parties and for confronting the said parties/rebutting the alleged third party information before passing the orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act and 144C(1) of the Act despite of the fact that cross-examination is the sine qua non of due process of taking evidences and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the party put on a notice of the case made out against him and therefore, the impugned orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act and 144C(1) of the Act needs to be quashed.

6. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the statutory approval so granted by Ld. Addi. CIT, Central Range-8, New Delhi is merely mechanical/statistical, without application of mind, without considering and perusing the material on record, facts of the case, applicable legal position and thus, bad in law thereby making the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act and 144C(1) of the Act, void ab initio.

7. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP have erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) r.พ.ร. 144C(13)