The assessee has raised an additional ground, which reads as under :

“That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the consequential transfer pricing adjustments made including the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the order dated January 28, 2014 passed under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), has been passed by an Officer not having jurisdiction to act as TPO under Chapter-X of the Act.”

Dealing with additional ground the Tribunal held that  the,  definition of ‘Transfer Pricing Officer’, it transpires that the same refers to ‘Joint Commissioner’ and not the ‘Joint Commissioner of Income-tax’. Whereas the ‘Joint Commissioner of Income-tax’ is an authority u/s 116(cca) of the Act, the ‘Joint Commissioner’ as defined in S.  2(28C) is a term which encompasses two income-tax authorities, namely, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [being an authority u/s 116(cca)] and ‘Additional Commissioner of Income-tax’ [being an authority u/s 116(cc)]. Explanation below S. 92CA(7) defining the term ‘Transfer Pricing Officer’, inter alia,refers to the term ‘Joint Commissioner’ and not the authority ‘Joint Commissioner of income-tax’. In the absence of any separate definition of the term ‘Joint Commissioner’ given in Chapter-X of the Act, its general definition as given in S.  2(28C) would apply, as per which both the JCIT and Addtl. CIT can act as TPO. On harmoniously reading Explanation below 92CA(7) along with S.  116 on one hand and S. 2(28C) on the other, the sequitur is that both the authorities, namely, JCIT and Addtl. CIT can act as TPO and there is no statutory proscription in the Addtl. CIT acting as TPO in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the impugned order has been passed by the Addtl. CIT on 28-01-2014, which obviously is after the insertion of the definition of ‘Joint Commissioner’ given in S.  2(28C), we hold that no infirmity can be found in his passing the order u/s.92CA(3). Ergo, the additional ground raised on behalf of the assessee is jettisoned. (AY. 2010-11)