IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 228/DE/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22)

Opterna Technologies Vs. DCIT/Assessment Unit of Private Limited National Faceless Assessment E-20, 1^st& Centre (‘NFAC’)

2^ndfloo,rHauzKhas, South Circle -19(1)

West Delhi, India New Delhi PAN: AABCO1540R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Vijay Gupta, Adv & Ms.Neerja, Adv Revenue by Sh. S. K. Jadhav, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 19/11/2024passed u/s 144(3) r.w.Section144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short)

pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring NIL income with loss of Rs. -31,30,150/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘High Risk International Transactions (TP Risk para meter)’. The case of the Assessee was referred to the TPO and the TPO passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 31/10/2023 by determining the Arm’s Length Price in respect of international transactions entered by the Assessee. Draft assessment order came to be passed on 28/12/2023 u/s 144C(1) of the Act, DRP issued directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 30/04/2024. Consequent to the DRP directions a final assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Act on 19/11/2024 by determining the income of the Assessee at Rs. 3,58,79,782/- by making an addition of Rs. 3,90,06,932/-. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order dated 19/11/2024, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3. The Ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that the issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2020-21 in ITA No. 4293/Del/2024 vide order dated 07/05/2025. Thus, sought for following the said order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2020-21.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative contended that the Tribunal in its order for Assessment Year 2020-21 made certain observation which are not based on the material available on record and submitted that it is appropriate to give fair opportunity to the TPO/A.O. The Ld. Department's Representative has taken us through material available on record and by relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2020-21 held as under:-

“-:Finding of the Bench:-

12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We observed that in this case the basic observation of the TPO is that the assessee failed to file audited segmental results. We further observed that during the course of DRP proceeding, the assessee has filed audited segmental results before the Ld. DRP along with the application of additional evidence. Copies of these audited segmental results are there in paper book at pages no.175 to 178. A perusal of the figures mentioned in the audited segmental proves beyond the doubt that they are same as were submitted before the TPO. Be that as it may, in remand proceedings, the ld. TPO vide its remand report dated 24.04.2024 has also accepted these audited segmental as correct and hence there would be no grievance of the TPO. The next objection of the TPO was that cost allocation expenses, particularly employee cost and other expenses are on much higher side in-service segment. However, we are of the view that this observation is of no use for two reasons because the assessee has duly submitted the breakup of cost allocation such as SEZ units, Non-SEZ units, transaction with AE or Non-AE and the TPO has not pointed out any defect in this segregated figures as coming out from page no.191 onwar