VEER GEMS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the reference made by the respondent No.1 -Assessing Officer to the respondent No.2 -Additional Commissioner of Income -Tax (Transfer Pricing Officer -I), under Section 92CA(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 16thAugust 2011 made by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner.

(2.) Facts leading to present petition are as follows : -

(3.) At this stage the petitioner has approached this Court by filing present petition and challenged the reference made by the respondent No.1 - Assessing Officer to the respondent No.2 -TPO and also the communication dated 16th August 2010 addressed by the respondent No.2 -TPO, by which the petitioner is required to supply certain details. Short case of the petitioner is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008 -09, the petitioner had not entered into any international transaction with any associated person. Reference to the TPO was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Subsidiary contention of the petitioner also is that its objections to making a reference to TPO were not considered by the Assessing Officer, who alone was competent to and required to do so. Instead, the TPO issued a notice calling upon the petitioner why the transaction with M/s.Blue Gems BVBA should not be subject to transfer pricing proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that the TPO cannot go into the question of validity of the reference.