AMIT SINGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6694/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 April 2023AY 2013-144 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 Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271BA. It found that the assessee failed to furnish the required report under Section 92E and did not provide any contrary material to rebut this finding.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to obtain a Form 3CEB report as mandated by Section 92E of the Income Tax Act. Despite notices, the assessee remained unrepresented and did not comply with statutory requirements. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271BA is leviable for failure to obtain a Form 3CEB report, and whether the assessee's non-compliance justifies the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92E,Section 271BA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 12.04.2023Pronounced: 17.04.2023

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi dated 26.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case in upholding the impugned order of penalty passed u/s 271 BA of the IT Act on ignoring the fact that the tax auditors in their audit report in Form 3 CD has mentioned Nil against the column of related party transactions in S.No.18 therein and therefore the appellant was not required to obtain the transfer pricing report in Form 3CEB from the tax auditors. The omission of obtaining report in Form 3CEB in any way is not on the part of the appellant and therefore the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,00.000/- levied on appellant need to be deleted.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.”

2.

At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings. It is seen from the record that no one has been attending the hearing of the appeal. The notice sent on earlier occasion also was returned with the remark “left without intimation”. The assessee has not provided his current address. Therefore, under these facts, appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record.

3.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”), assessing income at Rs. 6,10,46,390/- as against the returned income of Rs. 4,01,602/- on 20.12.2016. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee failed to obtained 3CEB report in the prescribed form as mandated by Section 92E of the Act. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271BA of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice calling upon the assessee as to why penalty u/s 271BA should not be imposed. Statutory notices as issued by the Assessing Officer remained un-complied. It is further noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee kept on avoiding the proceedings and a reply was filed without proper authorization. Therefore, the Assessing Officer imposed the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). Before the learned CIT(Appeals) also the assessee remained unrepresented on various dates. The learned CIT(Appeals) after considering the material available on record sustained the penalty and dismissed the grounds of appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

The learned DR opposed the grounds of appeal and submitted that the assessee has been negligent and did not comply with the statutory requirement.

Therefore, the penalty was correctly imposed.

6.

We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals) have recorded the fact that the assessee did not furnish the report as envisaged u/s 92E of the Act. The assessee

has not rebutted this finding by placing any contrary material on record. Under these facts we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. The same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are rejected.

7.

Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court during the course of hearing on 17th April, 2023.

More judgments on Section 92E

All 132 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →