“15. At this stage, we are not to scrutinize the direction of the DRP as an Appellate Court. There are reasons given by the DRP for upholding the action of the TPO and we cannot analyse the same, while exercising writ jurisdiction. The aforesaid reasoning would have to be tested before the appropriate forum. The factual background would have to be necessarily evaluated by the AO while framing the assessment order. Therefore, in the instant case, we cannot say that directions are „non-speaking‟ and there is a breach of principles of natural justice. The objections and the material placed by the Petitioner have been examined, but for the reasons noted above, the DRP has taken a different view. Even if we were to assume for the sake arguments that this view is erroneous, we cannot hold it be an error of jurisdiction. Every error of an authority is not open to judicial review merely by terming it to be a „jurisdictional error‟, although the same may, at a later stage, be set aside for being erroneous. Accepting the contention raised by Mr. Vohra would mean that we will have to venture into the factual matrix of the case and come to a conclusion on whether the findings of the DRP are proper, and comment on the methodology behind the determination of the ALP. There cannot be any denying the fact that each assessment year is an independent proceeding and therefore the factual finding given by the DRP while agreeing with the TPO with regard to the method to be applied for determining the ALP will have to be examined by the appropriate forum. Further, on the aspect of the Petitioner not being afforded an opportunity of hearing, we may only observe that it is not the case of the Petitioner that a hearing was not held. In fact, the Petitioners have averred that on 1st December, 2020, the final hearing in the matter was conducted by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner had also filed its written submissions before Respondent No. 2 on the subject matter, raising the plea of consistency. Besides, detailed submissions on merit, along with the relevant materials have also been filed in support thereof. Thus, we cannot attribute any violation of breach of natural justice to the DRP on the ground of not affording an opportunity of hearing.
