(PAN: AAACL5340H) Circle2(1), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 599/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 201011 Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Vs. M/s. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. Circle2(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AAACL5340H) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 617/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 201011 M/s. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, (PAN: AAACL5340H) Circle2(1), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 22.08.2016 Date of pronouncement: 19.10.2016 For the Assessee: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, AR For the Revenue: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: These appeals of the assessee arise out of the proceedings for the Asst Years 200910 and 201011 of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 24.6.2015 and 31.12.2014 respectively in which directions are given to the Learned AO u/s 144C(5) read with section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical in nature, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2 ITA No. 599, 1051 & 617/Kol/2015 Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 200910 & 201011 ITA No. 1051/Kol/2015 Asst Year 200910 2. The assessee had raised a preliminary ground objecting to the initiation of reassessment proceedings . Hence the first question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the reassessment proceedings have been validly initiated and framed as per law in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee company filed its return of income on 29.9.2009 and received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 13.10.2010. No notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on the assessee selecting the case for scrutiny. However, a reference was made by the ld AO to ld TPO who passed an order proposing an adjustment of Rs. 2,43,53,752/ to Arm's Length Price (ALP) determined by the assessee. Since no assessment proceeding was pending at that time in order to give effect to the order of the ld TPO, the ld AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reassessment proceedings, no fresh reference was made to ld TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of ALP in respect of international transactions of the assessee. The reassessment was completed by making an addition towards ALP to the tune of Rs. 2,43,53,752/ as made by the ld TPO and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 27,575/. The assessee filed objections before the ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) objecting to the validity of reassessment and on merits. The ld DRP disposed off the objections vide its proceedings u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 24.6.2015 stating that the assessee is not an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the jurisdiction of the ld DRP could not be invoked. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on various grounds. The principal ground revolves around objecting to the validity of the reassessment framed by the ld AO by making an adjustment to ALP based on order of the ld TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act which was admittedly made vide illegal reference to ld TPO before the initiation of reassessment proceedings when the assessment proceedings were not pending by way of selecting the case for scrutiny. Apart from th