IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5297/DEL/2024 [Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Molvizadah Sons India Private National e-Assessment Centre, Limited Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: 464 F/F Fateh Puri, Khari Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Baoli, Chandni Chowk, Tax, Circle-16(1), C.R. Building, Central Delhi, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110006 PAN-AALCM3255B Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv.

Ms. Hemlata Sharma, CA Respondent by Shri S K Jadhav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2025

ORDER

PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM The present appeal of the assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer dated 21.10.2024 having DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1069800458(1) and relates to Assessment year 2021-22.

2. Brief facts of the case as coming out of the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a company and engaged in the business of trading of Spices, Oil Seeds, Seeds, Coffee, Tea, Dry Fruits and etc. to its Associated Enterprises (in short ‘AE’) and third parties. In the impugned assessment year, the assessee has entered into international transaction with its AE and third parties and filed its return of income, observing international transactions with its AE, the Assessing Officer made reference to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‘TPO’) for computing the Arm’s Length Price (in short ‘ALP’) of the international transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE. The Ld. TPO vide its order dated 28.10.2023 made certain adjustments of Rs.4,29,49,937/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 11.12.2023.

3. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and assailed the draft assessment order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DRP vide its order dated 26.09.2024 gave certain directions and then the ld. TPO passed the fresh TP order on 19.10.2024. It is pertinent to note here that in the fresh TP order, the adjustments of Rs.4.29 Crores were revised to the tune of Rs.1.64 Crores, after the directions of the Ld. DRP. Then, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order, which is impugned before us and framed the assessment.

4. Aggrieved with the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has come up in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed AO (Technical Unit) has erred in making a reference u/s 92CA (I) of the Act without having any powers for making such a reference. Accordingly, the Transfer Pricing reference is bad in law, consequently the TP order dated October 28. 2023, is bad in law and ought to be quashed.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO [Addl/Joint Commissioner TP 2(2)] has erred in passing the TP order dated October 28, 2023 without having any jurisdiction to pass such order. Accordingly, the said TP order is bad in law and ought to be quashed.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in not issuing the final assessment order in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble DRP. Thus, the learned AO has violated the mandatory provisions of section 144C(10) read with 144C(13). Accordingly, the final assessment order dated October 21, 2024 is bad in law and ought to be quashed.

Pertaining to Transfer Pricing Issues: Adjustment Rs.

42,949,937

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO" and the Learned AO (collectively referred as "the Revenue") erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 42,949,937 to the total income of the Appellant on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price ('ALP") of its international rela