9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv.Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. For The Department : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present penalty appeals have been filed by assessee against order dated 28/07/16 and 29/07/16 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-37 for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively on following grounds of appeal: ITA 5151/Del/16 AY 2006-07 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ( the Act ) is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. That Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 271(1)(c) is not automatically leviable. 6. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the explanation tendered by the appellant was not bonafide and tenable in law and also the appellant did not discharge onus / burden of proof cast on him till date. 7. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant failed to establish existence of due diligence good faith and, therefore, too, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. 8. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the explanation of the appellant on account export of steel products aggregating to ₹ 28,89,032 was found to be incorrect an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in levying penalty of ₹ 2,47,83,673/- under section 271(1)(c) ) of the Act in respect of transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,47,83,673/- on the transaction of export of stainless steel coils made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) of Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty proceedings were initiated without recording proper satisfaction in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and levy of penalty, therefore, was unlawful and is liable to be dropped. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts and in law in holding that the explanation of the appellant on account export of steel products aggregating to ₹ 2,47,83,673/- was found to be incorrect and, thus, the same tantamount to concealment of income, warranting imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the international transaction of export of stainless steel coils was duly reported as international transaction in the Transfer Pricing study and 3CEB certificate and all information and documents in relation thereto were placed on record and merely for the reason that the transfer pricing adjustment has been made on this account, it cannot be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed penalty. 6. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 7. Ground No. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are general in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication. 8. Ground No. 2 (i), 4 (i), 8 and 9 are in respect of penalty levied on transfer pricing adjustment. 8.1. It has been submitted that transfer pricing adjustment is due to difference in arm s length price of international transaction of export of stainless steel coils, difference in interest rate on loan charged from associated enterprises, adjustment on account of corporate guarantee given to AE. 8.2. Ld.Counsel at outset submitted that, in quantum proceedings for both years under consideration, this Tribunal set aside addition m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
