9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 719 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271AA - Assessee did not file Form 3CEB before 30.09.2011 for A.Y. 2011-12, being the specified date for its filing but the same was filed only on 18.07.2013 after the fact of non-compliance was confronted to assessee - No information about the international transaction in its transfer pricing report - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has given a finding that assessee has kept and maintained the information about the international transactions, the discussion of which is also in the Transfer Pricing Report which was submitted to the TPO during the assessment proceedings. CIT(A) thus concluded that the assessee was maintaining the information and documents as prescribed under the law regarding international transactions and that assessee has not failed in reporting any international transactions. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We further find that the ratio of the decision in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT relied before us by Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Income Tax Act for failure to maintain information about international transactions and reporting of such transactions for Assessment Year 2011-12. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Assessment by AO: The appeal filed by the Revenue was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the assessment for the year 2011-12. The assessee, a member of Micromax Group, had its premises searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was completed under sections 144C and 143(3), determining the total income at a higher amount than initially declared. Penalty proceedings under section 271AA were initiated due to alleged failure in maintaining information about international transactions. 2. Assessee's Contention and CIT(A) Order: The assessee contended that it had maintained all necessary information about international transactions in its transfer pricing report and had submitted the required documents during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the assessee had complied with the law by maintaining the information and documents as prescribed for international transactions. 3. Revenue's Appeal and Arguments: The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the penalty was justified based on the AO's findings. They relied on a Supreme Court decision and highlighted the alleged failure to report international transactions. The Revenue also mentioned the amendment to section 271AA in 2012, introducing new conditions for penalty imposition. 4. ITAT's Decision and Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It noted that the assessee had maintained information about international transactions, as evidenced by the transfer pricing report submitted during assessment. The ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the Supreme Court decision cited did not apply to the present case. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271AA for the assessment year 2011-12.
|
