AMIT SINGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
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:
2 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 “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.
The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.”
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.
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
3 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 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/-.
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.
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.
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
4 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 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.
Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court during the course of hearing on 17th April, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- ( M. BALAGANESH ) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
