9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of such international transactions before the concerned authority within the time prescribed. In our considered view, the failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the Audit Report in Form 3CEB from an Accountant in the prescribed proforma within the prescribed period, without reasonable cause, is a clear violation of the provisions of section 92E of the Act and we therefore uphold the levy of penalty under section 271BA of the Act as it is clearly warranted in the factual and legal matrix of the case on hand. - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of section 92E. The main contention of the assessee's counsel herein is that the assessee was under belief that with respect to the share application money transaction and share allotment entered into by the assessee, filing the audit report as prescribed by section 92E of the Act was not required. The reason which the assessee has given herein is that the provisions of section 92E were not applicable to the appellant company in the relevant year since appellant company had only allotted shares to an individual Non Resident Indian and has not carried out any other transaction. It is noted that when the assessee had filed the return of income after duly audited by the chartered accountant, what prevented the assessee to prepare the audit report u/s. 92E is also not clear from the argument of the assessee. The assessee had been assisted by competent legal professionals and chartered accountants and I do not find any reason as to how the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to prepare the audit report from chartered accountant and furnish the same to the authorities as stipulated u/s. 92E. The reason given by the assessee herein cannot be accepted on face value si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any infirmity in the penalty order of the A.O. and the levy of penalty is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal in this regard are dismissed." ; • • : 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 10.02.2016 upholding the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under section 271BA of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai General: 1. Erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer and upholding the levy of penalty u/s. 271BA of ₹ 1,00,000/-; 2.a. erred in concluding that in given facts and circumstances of the case provisions of section 92E were applicable to your appellant in the relevant year since your appellant has only allotted shares to an individual non-resident Indian and had not carried out any other transaction. 2.b. erred in ignoring the judgment of Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited. Vs. ACIT (2014) 368 ITR 0001 (Bom) where in it has been held that provisions of issuance of equity shares by resident company, since neither capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hare capital and share premium from its NRI Director for allotment of shares and no other international transaction; would not hold good. In our view, since the assessee entered into international transactions in the year under consideration, failure on its part to file the Audit Report from an accountant in Form 3CEB, as required under section 92E of the Act within the time prescribed, renders it liable to the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under section 271BA of the Act as levied and sustained by the authorities below. In coming to this view, we draw support from the finding of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of IL&FS Maritime Infrastructure Company Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4177/Mum/2012 dated 24.07.2013; wherein the Coordinate Bench held that share investment transactions fall within the purview of section 92E of the Act and the assessee is required to file audit report in Form 3CEB for such transactions, by the prescribed date, before the authorities concerned and that failure to do so would attract levy of penalty under section 271BA of the Act. 3.2.3 In ground No. 2.b. (supra), the assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
