AT Kearney Ltd., Gurgaon v. ADIT, New Delhi

ITA 5459/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 545920114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AADCA0861H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5459/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant AT Kearney Ltd., Gurgaon
Respondent ADIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 04-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 17-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-02-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 03-12-2010
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 5459/DEL/2010 1/1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BENCH A BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5459 /DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) M/S. A. T. KEARNEY LTD. VS. ADIT 14 TH FLOOR TOWER D INTERNATIONAL TAXATION GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK NEW DELHI. GURGAON-122002 (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AADCA0861H APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANDEEP CHAWLA ADV. RESPONDENT BY: MS. ANUSHA KHURANA SR. DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA AM: PER A. K. GARODIA AM: PER A. K. GARODIA AM: PER A. K. GARODIA AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3)/144C OF THE I. T. ACT AS PER DIRECTIONS OF DRP DATED 30.07.2010 U/S 144C OF THE I. T. ACT. 2. VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPEAL BUT IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS BEFORE US ONE PRELIMINA RY OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORD ER OF DRP U/S 144C OF THE I. T. ACT IS A CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT ANY DIS CUSSION AND HENCE SUCH ORDER OF DRP IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A CRYPTIC O RDER OF DRP IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RE STORED BACK TO DRP/A.O. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VODAPHONE ESSAR LTD. AS REPORTED IN 2010-TII-22-H. C.-DEL.-INTT. 3. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF DRP AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF THE A.O. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY DRP U/S 144C. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER I.T.A. NO. 5459/DEL/2010 2/2 IS OF 1 PAGE. ON THE 1 ST PAGE IS THE MENTION OF ONLY BASIC DETAILS OF VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE A LSO FIND THAT THE MENTION BY DRP IS OF 1 8 GROUNDS OF OBJECTION REL ATED TO TP ADJUSTMENT SUGGESTED BY TPO AND EVEN THE PRECISE OB JECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT MENTI ONED BY DRP IN THIS ORDER. DRP HAS STATED FOUR MORE OBJECTIONS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. 9 TH GROUND TO 12 TH GROUND OF OBJECTIONS. ON THE 2 ND PAGE OF ITS ORDER DRP HAS STATED THAT AFTER DUE CO NSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND THE ARGUMENTS OF TP OS REPLY IT IS HELD THAT OP/OC MARGIN CALCULATED BY TPO IS VALID AND DIRECTION S U/S 144C ARE THAT NO CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE TO TP AD JUSTMENT. REGARDING 9 TH GROUND OF OBJECTION IT IS STATED THATS THIS IS R EGARDING BAD DEBTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT DECISION A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. EVEN THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AS TO WHICH DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COUR T IN WHICH CASE IS BEING REFERRED TO BY THE DRP. REGARDING THE REM AINING THREE OBJECTIONS BEING GROUNDS NOS. 10 11 & 12 SIMPLY T HIS IS STATED BY DRP THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS HELD TO BE CORRECT WIT HOUT INDICATING ANY BASIS. UNDER THESE FACTS WE FIND THAT THE JUD GMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VODAPHO NE ESSAR LTD. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THAT CASE THAT WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AU THORITY DEALS WITH A LIS IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER I S CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO WE FIND THAT NO COGENT AND GERMANE REASON HAS BEEN ASC RIBED BY DRP WHILE DECIDING THE 12 OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE IT AND HENCE SUCH AN ORDER OF DRP IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF IMPUGNED DRP DIRECTION DATED 30.07.2010 AN D RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DEC ISION AFTER OBTAINING FRESH DIRECTION FROM DRP. WHILE GIVING FRESH DIREC TION DRP SHOULD I.T.A. NO. 5459/DEL/2010 3/3 FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VODAPHONE ESSAR LTD. (SUPRA). THE COGENT A ND GERMANE REASON SHOULD BE ASCRIBED BY DRP IN ITS ORDER. WIT H THESE DIRECTIONS THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MARCH 2011. SD./- SD./- (I. P. BANSAL) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:4 TH MARCH 2011 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI