- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition challenges an order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 30 September 2011. The Assessing Officer (AO) had referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After a determination by the TPO, the AO issued a draft assessment order to which the petitioner raised objections. The DRP issued directions under section 144C(5) by its determination of 30 September 2011. Subsequently, the AO passed a final order of assessment on 17 October 2011; a copy of that assessment order was produced during the hearing and handed over to the counsel for the other side. The present proceedings concern the challenge to the DRP order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the challenge to the Dispute Resolution Panel's determination dated 30 September 2011 should be sustained.
- Whether interim relief in the form of restraint on coercive steps should be granted to enable the petitioner to apply for a stay before the Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the petitioner has an existing statutory remedy by way of an appeal against the order of assessment. It noted that through that appeal the petitioner can seek redress on all issues, including the addition made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the return. On this basis the court concluded it was appropriate to "relegate" the petitioner to the remedy of an appeal to the Tribunal rather than grant the relief sought in the present petition.
Bearing in mind the practical consequences and to allow the petitioner an opportunity to apply to the Tribunal for interim relief, the court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The court further directed that if the petitioner files an appeal and makes an application for stay before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider that application on its merits.
The court recorded that a copy of the assessment order had been handed to the counsel for the other side and concluded by disposing of the petition without any order as to costs.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of assessment before the Tribunal.
- The court granted a limited interim protection: no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for six weeks from the date of the order to enable an application for stay to be moved before the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal, if approached, will decide any stay application on its own merits.
- No order as to costs was made.
The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or purport to lay down any new precedent; its effect is confined to the disposal of the petition and the limited interim direction recorded above.
1. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on September 30, 2011. In the present case, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Following a determination by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer issued a draft order to which the petitioner raised objections. The Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions under section 144C(5) by its impugned determination dated September 30, 2011. Following this, the Assessing Officer has passed an order of assessment on October 17, 2011, a copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue during the course of the hearing.
2. The petitioner has the remedy of an appeal against the order of assessment in which all issues, inter alia, including the addition made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the return could be addressed to the Tribunal. We accordingly dispose of the petition by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of an appeal against the order of assessment. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances and in order to enable the petitioner to apply for a stay before the Tribunal, we direct that for a period of six weeks from today, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. In the event that the petitioner moves the Tribunal in an appeal against the order of assessment, and in the event an application for stay is made, the Tribunal will deal with the application on its own merits.
3. Copy of the order of the assessment has been handed over to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other side.
4. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Alert