Facts of the Case

  1. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order dated October 23, 2009, issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act.
  2. The TPO's order determined the Arm's Length Price (ALP) regarding an international transaction for 'representation services' and made an upward adjustment addition of Rs. 41,95,484/- (nearly a 90% increase in price).
  3. Based on the TPO's order, the Assessing Officer (AO) formulated a Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Act, proposing to include this dynamic addition to the final computation.
  4. The Petitioner submitted necessary information and documentation during the TPO proceedings and expressly requested via a letter dated October 13, 2009, to be confronted or given clarity before any final disallowance was made. However, the TPO allegedly adopted a final calculation formula unilaterally without presenting it to the Petitioner.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) violated the principles of natural justice by failing to confront the Petitioner with the specific mathematical formula/basis ultimately utilized to calculate the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
  2. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a TPO's determination when a statutory alternative remedy via the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C is actively available.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Violation of Natural Justice: The Petitioner argued that while they responded to standard queries and information requests, they were never confronted with the specific framework or formula adopted by the TPO in the final order.
  • Precedent Reliance: The learned counsel relied heavily on the Delhi High Court judgment in Moser Bear India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2009) 316 ITR 1 (Del.).
  • Maintainability of Writ: Relying on the Moser Bear precedent, the Petitioner argued that Section 92CA(3) mandates a personal and fair hearing. If a valid opportunity is denied before the final determination of the ALP, the aggrieved assessee has the absolute right to challenge the validity of such an order via an Article 226 Writ Petition.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Opportunity Was Afforded: The learned counsel for the Revenue produced official records/entries demonstrating that the TPO had called upon the petitioner multiple times to submit information and make arguments. Thus, it cannot be categorized as a complete absence of an opportunity to be heard.
  • Existence of Statutory Remedy: The Revenue contended that the ongoing procedure had only reached the stage of a Draft Assessment Order. The assessee possessed an efficacious statutory mechanism to present their objections directly before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C.

Court Order / Findings

  • No Total Denial of Hearing: The High Court observed from the records that the petitioner was involved in the proceedings and asked to furnish details periodically; hence, it was not a case of total denial of a hearing.
  • Availability of Statutory Remedial Framework: The Court noted that under Section 144C, the assessee has an explicit legal remedy to file complete objections against the TPO’s report and the AO's Draft Order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
  • Mandate of Section 144C(6): The Court highlighted that the DRP is statutorily bound under Section 144C(6) to comprehensively evaluate the draft order, objections, evidence produced by the assessee, and official reports before issuing final directions.
  • Dismissal due to Alternative Remedy: Because an alternate statutory forum exists where the petitioner can present fresh evidence and raise all arguments to rebut the TPO’s methodology, the Court deemed it unnecessary to entertain the matter via its writ jurisdiction.
  • Directive to the DRP: The Writ Petition was dismissed with an explicit observation and hope that the DRP will pass a comprehensive, speaking order after dynamically addressing the objections and evidentiary submissions made by the petitioner.

Important Clarification

While the landmark ruling in Moser Bear India Ltd. establishes that a complete lack of a personal hearing under Section 92CA(3) opens the doors for a Writ Petition under Article 226, this case clarifies the limitation of that rule. If an assessee participated in the TPO proceedings but merely objects to the final formula/basis adopted by the TPO, it does not amount to a total denial of natural justice. In such circumstances, the proper and mandatory course of action is to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C, rather than seeking extraordinary writ interventions.

Sections Involved

  • Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Procedure and passing of order by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
  • Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Reference to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and issuance of the Draft Assessment Order.
  • Section 144C(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Statutory guidelines and materials to be considered by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) while issuing directions.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Link to download the order -

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2009:DHC:8435-DB/AKS22122009CW140792009_120405.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.