202, Platina, 2nd Floor, Plot Special Range1, No. C59, GBlock, Bandra New Delhi Kurla Coomplex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra PAN :AAECA3592N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ajit Karode, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 07.08.2019 Date of pronouncement 24.09.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 11/10/2018 passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessing Officer') for assessment year 201415, pursuant to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That, the final assessment order framed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Incometax, Special Range 2 ITA No.7290/Del/2018 1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. AO") pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel I (hereinafter referred to as "the Hon'ble DRP") under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), is a vitiated order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is otherwise arbitrary and is thus bad in law and is void ab initio. 2. That, in framing the impugned assessment order, the reference made by the Ld. AO under section 92CA(1) of the Act suffers from jurisdictional error, as the Ld. AO had not recorded any reasons nor he had any material whatsoever on the basis of which he could even reach a primafacie opinion, that it was 'necessary or expedient' to refer the matter to the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer l(1)(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. TPO") for computation of arm's length price ("ALP"). TP adjustment in relation to software services [INR 20,55,61,108] 3. That on the fact of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ TPO /Hon'ble DRP have erred, in making an adjustment of INR 20,55,61,108 to the total income of the Appellant in respect of international transaction pertaining to provision of software Services by the Appellant to its associated enterprise ("AE"). 3.1 That on the fact of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'), and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the ALP of the Appellant's international transaction pertaining to provision of software services by the Appellant and holding that the said international transaction is not at an arm's length without sharing the detailed accept reject matrix for selection or rejection of companies evaluated by him. 3 ITA No.7290/Del/2018 3.2 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in rejecting the Appellant's claim to use multiple year data for computing the arm's length price and, I instead, has adhered to the use of single year (i.e. FY 201314) updated data to conclude I the ALP of the international transaction which was not available to the Appellant at the time of undertaking transfer pricing study required to be maintained under Section 92D of the Act. 3.3 That on fact of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters such as different financial year end and export service income filter for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 3.4 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by wrongfully rejecting comparable companies and including certain non comparable companies to the final set of comparable companies for the purpose of determining the ALP of the