BATRONICS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1192/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 July 2021AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal deleted the penalty, finding the assessee's default condonable. This was based on the fact that many of the disputed transactions were prescribed by a retrospective amendment and the assessee had succeeded on similar issues in prior assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee was levied a penalty under Section 271BA for failure to report international transactions as required by Section 92E. The alleged omissions included receivables and corporate guarantee.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271BA is leviable for non-reporting of international transactions when the reporting requirements were subject to retrospective amendments and the assessee had a reasonable cause for the omission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271BA,Section 92E,Section 92B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.Batronics India DCIT, Circle-1(2), Limited, Vs HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AAACB8231F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Waseem-ur-Rehman, DR Date of Hearing : 31-05-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 19-07-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 28-06-2019 passed in appeal No.10018/2018-19/DCIT,1(2)/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2019-20, involving proceedings u/s.271BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271BA penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- for its alleged failure in reporting international transactions as required u/s.92E of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee had duly filed its Form-3CEB which led to Section 92AC reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) followed by the consequential assessment dt.31-03-2017.

3.

Learned departmental representative’s vehement contention during the course of hearing is that both the lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned penalty in view of the fact that the assessee had not reported its international transactions including receivables, corporate guarantee etc. He fails to dispute that almost all the said international transactions alleged to have been omitted in assessee’s Form- 3CEB came to be prescribed vide amendment in Section 92B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-2002 whereas we are in the immediate next assessment year i.e. AY.2013-14. Coupled with this, the assessee had already succeeded on the very issues before the tribunal in AYs.2012-13 proceedings regarding the corresponding adjustments. All these facts sufficiently indicate that the assessee’s alleged default in not having reported the corresponding international transactions in Form-3CEB appears to be very condonable in view of its explanation given throughout. We accordingly delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2021

More judgments on Section 271BA

All 94 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →