Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - (1.) This Appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and final order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing Income Tax Appeal No.281 of 2016 preferred by the appellant herein and thereby confirming the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short) in ITA No.2399/Mum/2009.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as under:- A) The respondent had received certain amount of brokerage from its parent company. During the assessment proceedings the respondent was directed to furnish details about the parent company and the rate of brokerage that was charged. After the details were furnished, the respondent was asked to establish if the parent company was involved in arbitrage activity and whether the rate charged was higher. After considering the material on record, according to the Assessing Officer, the brokerage charged by the respondent was only 0.05% which was found to be at a lower rate as compared to the prevalent rates in market. The Assessing Officer, therefore, while computing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), by his order dated 27.12.2007 made an addition of Rs.2,89,82,746/- under Section 92 of the Act.B) The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) , who by his order dated 16.02.2009 confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. The matter was carried further by filing ITA No.2399/Mum/2009 before the Tribunal.C) The Tribunal by its order dated 22.04.2015 set aside the findings rendered by the first two authorities and held that transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the mandatory instructions issued by CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) in its Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal observed as under:-"16.1 After considering the entire judicial discussion discussed hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the mandatory instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes cannot be brushed aside lightly. By not making reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, the AO has breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT thereby making the assessment order on this issue in violation of the provisions of the law. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the Transfer Pricing Adjustments made by the AO in contradiction to the mandatory instructions of the CBDT is bad in law. Here, we would like to make it clear that the assessment order is good but the Transfer Pricing Adjustments made therein are bad in law. Ground No.11 is therefore partly allowed.16.2 Before parting with this issue, the Ld. DR has emphasized that if the AO has not followed the mandatory directions, the case may be set aside to the file of the AO so that he may refer the matter to the TPO. We do not subscribe to this argument of the Ld. DR for the simple reason that the Tribunal is an Appellate Authority and therefore cannot interfere in the administrative matters which are mandatory as per the provisions of the Act. Reference to the TPO is an administrative matter which was supposed to be followed by the AO which he has failed to do so. The Tribunal cannot make any good to such lapse made by the AO.17. As we have held that T.P. Adjustments are bad in law, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case.18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ... ..."
(3.) The view so taken by the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court which is presently under Appeal. We heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate in support of the Appeal and Mr. Arijit Chakravarty, learned Advocate for the Respondent.;