We have mentioned herein above that it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of objection to applicability of chapter X , if raised by the assessee, before referring the transaction to the TPO as it is a basic issue and would prevent loss of man hours on both sides in computing the ALP if it is finally concluded that Chapter X is not applicable.
We are of the view that this exercise could also be done by the Assessing officer before he determines the ALP in exercise of his powers under Section 92C(3) . It was Mr. Nani Palkhiwala who in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the eighth edition of his monumental work “The Law and Practice of Income Tax” observed:
“Every Government has a right to levy taxes. But no Government has the right, in the process of extracting tax, to cause misery and harassment to the taxpayer and the gnawing feeling that he is made the victim of palpable injustice”
The revenue would do well to keep the above stage advice in mind while dealing with the assessee. We are constrained to observe that in this case it would be natural for the petitioner to feel harassed as the Assessing Officer did not give any opportunity of hearing before making a reference to the TPO and none of the two authorities viz. the TPO and the Assessing Officer dealt with its preliminary objection. The TPO does not deal with the petitioner’s objection about applicability of Chapter X , on the ground that it would be dealt with by the Assessing officer. Thereafter when the petitioner raises the same issue before the Assessing Officer he does not deal with the same on the ground that he is bound to complete the assessment in terms of the ALP determined by the TPO. We hope the revenue will be more sensitive to the just demands of the assessee and not treat the assessee as an adversary who has to be taxed, no matter what.
Do you think CBDT should extend Tax Audit Report and relevant ITR Due Date? Please Comment, Vote, Retweet and Like.— Tax Guru (@taxguru_in) September 18, 2018