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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1078/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 April 2021AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 92B, which included receivables as an international transaction, had retrospective effect from 01-04-2002 but did not automatically obligate the assessee to report such transactions in the relevant previous year.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271AA for the assessee's failure to report international transactions related to receivables. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was obligated to report international transactions related to receivables in the relevant assessment year, considering the retrospective amendment to Section 92B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AA,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

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 05-04-2019 passed in case No.0062/2017-18/DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyd/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2018- 19, in proceedings u/s.271AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order deleting impugned penalty of Rs.75,88,720/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271AA of the Act i.e., alleging assessee’s failure to report its international transactions relating to receivables u/s.92B of the Act. We notice at the outset in this factual backdrop that this tribunal’s quantum decision in assessee’s appeal itself has held that the amendment to this effect inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 vide explanatory note with retrospective effect from 01-04-2002 would not automatically imply that the assessee was expected to consider the receivables as an international transaction during the relevant previous year. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well to decline the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance seeking to restore the impugned penalty. All other pleadings on merit are rendered infructuous therefore.

3.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th April, 2021

More judgments on Section 271AA

All 182 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →