The DRP Panel has been set up with a view to providing speedy disposal of cases in a fair and just manner.
However, the DRP failed in its purpose in the case of  22 ITR (Trib)-OL 269 (ITAT[Del]) in which the assessee who purchased finished goods from its associated enterprises and resold such goods to unrelated parties without any value addition applied the resale price method to benchmark the international transactions. The resale price method was substituted the transactional net margin method by the TPO Nd DRP not looking at the history of the case.
Admittedly, in the past and in succeeding years the application of the resale price method for determining the arm’s length price had been accepted by the Department.
Section 144C subsection (7) requires the DRP to make
(a) such further inquiry, as it thinks fit; or
(b) cause any further inquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it.
Little did the DRP do to make a slight inquiry in preceding and succeeding years as it is the prime most thing in every TP case since transactions are undertaken on a continuous basis and what follows in one year got to be searched out to form an opinion on the appropriate benchmarking method in a particular year.
In fact, the principle of consistency forthrightly prevail upon the principles of res judicata in transfer pricing proceedings