IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 760/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lister Moessner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 6/2 Bachan House, Circle-13(1), Delhi Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018 PAN: AABCL 0639 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv.

Shri Vibhu Gupta, Adv.

Department represented by Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the Assessment Order dated 20.12.2024 [DIN: ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1071426224(1)], passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, under Section 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1) The order passed by the Learned Assessment Unit under section 144C/147 read with section 144B of the Act on directions of the DRP is bad in law in so far as it confirms the additions proposed in the draft assessment order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

2) That the reopening of assessment made by the Assessment Unit/Learned AO is illegal, bad in law, time barred pursuant to which the Assessment Order passed thereto is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed.

3) The reopening of assessment being based on risk management strategy formulated by CBDT which posted the information on the insight portal that the assessee company had under-valued export of Rs. 1,61,83,593/- to its sister concern was incorrect and despite the reply of the assessee to the contrary that the amount represented the receipt of export proceeds in one of its bank accounts maintained with Central Bank of India, which information did not suggest any escapement of income rendering the passing of order under section 148(A)(d) and issue of notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment illegal, bad in law which is unsustainable in law and facts of the case.

4) Without prejudice to above Grounds of Appeal, the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer has grossly erred in not providing a copy of the approval received from the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax for reference to determine the Arm's length price of export sales transactions between the assessee and its sister concern to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act depriving the assessee of the opportunity to challenge the TP reference before commencement of transfer pricing proceedings which renders the order unsustainable in law and facts of the case.

5) That the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has grossly erred in confirming part additions in determination of Arm's length price of transactions of export sale between the assessee and its associated enterprise in Germany by summarily dismissing the submission of the assessee during the proceedings before DRP which is arbitrary biased, bad in law and facts of the case.

6) That the Learned DRP and consequently the assessment unit grossly erred in not accepting the comparables selected by the assessee company and in substituting the comparable which 6 were functionally different for determining the Arm's length price of export sales transactions made by the assessee company with its associate concern in Germany resulting in higher Arm's length price which is unsustainable in law and facts of the case.

7) The Learned DRP and consequently the assessment unit have grossly erred in not allowing the adjustment for working capital contrary to established judicial precedents and OECD guidelines for which working was provided during the course of proceedings before the DRP which denial is unsustainable in law and facts of the case.

8) That the Learned DRP and consequently th