IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 PAN :AAGFB0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by S/Shri SS Nagar & Basant Maheshwari, CAs.

Department by Shri Chetan P.S. Rao, CIT DR Date of hearing 03.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 02.12.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 02.03.2022 of Learned Assessing Officer/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) for assessment year 2017-18.

2. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the appeal was filed on 29.04.2022 along with challan dated 29.04.2022. Hard copy was submitted later on. So, there is no delay in filing the appeal. In view of above facts, the appeal is within limitation.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 27-11-2017 declaring total income was declared at Rs.26,09,71,590/-. The case was taken under complete scrutiny. Notices under Section 143(2) dated 17-08- 2018 and 27-09-2018 were issued. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act with questionnaire were issued. Assessee submitted replies which were verified. The assessee is a manufacturer of Invertors and UPS which are sold to two AEs as also to other dealers in the open market. The selling price charged from AE is comparable or less than the price charged from dealers in open market. Regarding international transactions, Ld. TPO passed order dated 24.01.2021 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act and directed the adjustment of Rs.21,09,91,682 u/s 92CA(3)/80-1A(10)/80-IC of Act. The Ld. TPO advised the ld. AO to consider initiation of penalty under Section 270A of the Act against the assessee. After receipt of the TPO order, the Ld. AO issued the draft order dated 24.03.2021 under Section 144C of the Act.

4. Against draft assessment order dated 24.03.2021, the appellant/assessee preferred objections before Ld. Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, New Delhi which were decided on 02.11.2021.

5. As per directions of Ld. DRP, Ld. AO passed order dated 02.03.2022.

6. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds of appeal:

“1. Ld. DRP erred in ignoring the submission that manufacturing profits on account of benefits related to backward area by way of waiver of 12.50% for excise duty and 2% for CST being backward area specific ought to be reduced to determine OP/OC of assessee, when such adjustments were allowed by DRP, New Delhi in Universal Power Products A.Y. 2016-17 where DRP passed order u/s 144C(5) Dated 26/02/2021 and by ITAT in M/s Sheela Foams Ltd., ITA No.8155/Del/2018-[2019] 107 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi - Trib.), Hyundal Construction Equipment India (P.) Ltd [2022] 134 taxmann.com 143 (Pune-Trib.)

2 That the order u/s 144C (5) dated 02/12/2021 by DRP-1 passed without quoting the computer-generated Din In the body of the order as well as not narrating the reasons for not mentioning the DIN Is contravention of CBDT circular No. 19 of 2019 and therefore Invalid as held by ITAT 'G' Bench-Mumbal in Gerah Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs PCIT In ITA No.

740/Mum/2021- Date of pronouncement: 30.03.2022.

3. That the order u/s 144C (5) dated 02/12/2021 by DRP-1 passed not through ITBA and without digital signatures is in contravention of E- Proceeding scheme-INSTRUCTION NO 01/2018, Dated: February 12, 2018 and therefore Invalid.

4. Ld. DRP/TPO erred fundamentally in arbitrarily presuming, that appellant manufactures 'Electronic including hardware" (TPO para 2.1) or 'computers, its parts, UPS, Inverters...... all kinds of electric and electronics goods' (DRP para 3) when