W.p.(C)/3628/2016 Of Cashedge India Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax & Anr

$~21 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 3628/2016 & CM No.15535/2016 (stay)CASHEDGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner ThroughMr Sachit Jolly with Mr Rahul Sateeja and MrGautam Swarup, Advocates.versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR. ..... RespondentsThroughMr P. Roychaudhuri, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R D E R%24.05.2016 This writ petition pertains to the order passed by the TPO dated 29.03.2016in respect of the Assessment Year 2008-09.The TPO had utilized purportedsegmental data of several companies for the purposes of arriving at the arms’length price, as indicated in the impugned order. The grievance is that despite thepetitioner seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the authorized personnel of thesaid companies, whose data had been relied upon, the opportunity had not beengranted to the petitioner. That being the case, the statement of the learned counselfor the petitioner is that the segmental data of those companies could not havebeen relied upon by the TPO inasmuch as that would be contrary to the principlesof natural justice. We had granted time to the respondents to take instructions as to whetheran opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the petitioner or not.Thelearned counsel for the respondents submits that all the documents were madeavailable to the petitioner and, according to him, that was sufficient opportunity.He, however, candidly admits that no opportunity of cross-examination of theauthorized personnel, who had provided the segmental data, was granted to thepetitioner. When reliance is placed on the data provided by different parties, the petitioner would have had no opportunity of rebutting the data unless the persons,who submitted the data, were subjected to cross-examination. This is all the moreso because the data that was submitted was not part of the audited accounts. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.03.2016and remit the matter to the TPO for affording an opportunity to the petitioner tocross-examine the authorized personnel of the said companies, who submitted thesegmental data, which has been utilized by the TPO. The TPO may thereafter passa fresh order in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall not takeup the plea of limitation. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.Dasti.Dasti. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MAY 24, 2016st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J