BANSAL CLASSES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA RAJASTHAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 331/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 September 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The AO's imposition of penalty was based on the premise that the assessee had not filed a report in Form 3ECB under section 92CA. However, the assessee contends that the report was filed and the TP proceedings were dropped.

What were the facts?

The assessee has appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac under section 271BA of the I.T. Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under section 271BA was justified when the assessee claims to have filed the requisite report and the TP proceedings were dropped.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271BA,Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR

Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 331/JP/2023

Hearing: 24/09/2024

PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi-54 dated 28-03-2023 for the assessment year 2014-15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’That the AO grossly erred on law and facts in levy of penalty u/s 271BA of I.T. Act, 1961 Rs.1.00 lac by stating that the assessee has not filed report in Form 3ECB falling u/s 92CA whereas as per facts the assessee filed report the TP proceedings were carried and dropped. As such, the AO is wrong imposing penalty and the ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming penalty levied by AO u/s 271BA.’’

More judgments on Section 271BA

All 94 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →