9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings. 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. - ITA No.4632/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2020 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R. For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly on 18.07.2013 after the fact of non-compliance was confronted to assessee. He also noted that the special Auditor had reported that assessee did not keep and maintain the information/ documents in respect of international transactions implying that assessee was not keeping and maintaining the information as mandated by sub section (1) of Section 92D r.w.r. 10D of the I.T. Rules. He also noted that the special auditor has given a finding of assessee s failure to comply with the provisions of Section 92/92D/92E of the I.T. Act. AO therefore, held that the assessee to be liable for penalty u/s 271AA and accordingly vide order dated 30.09.2015 levied penalty of ₹ 52,83,853/- u/s 271AA of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee had disclosed all correct and accurate particulars of his income in return of Income tax. Accordingly, the penalty of ₹ 52,83,853/- levied u/s 271AA deserves to be deleted. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, Learned DR took us the findings and observation of the AO and supported the order of AO. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2013)258 ITR 593. The Learned AR on the other hand submitted that penalty u/s 271AA was initiated and levied on the total international transactions of ₹ 26,41,92,634/-, comprising of loan advanced to AE amounting to ₹ 25 crores and interest charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly it cannot be imposed for A.Y. 2011-12. In support of the aforesaid contention, he relied on the decision of Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in the case of JCIT (OSD), Circle-8 (1) , Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd. AND (Vice- Versa)- 2019 (2) TMI 55 - ITAT Kolkata. He further submitted that Form 3CEB was furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and TPO after due consideration of the documents information furnished by the assessee determined the adjustment which was subsequently deleted by the ITAT. He further pointing to the notice issued u/s 271AA dated 21.10.2014 submitted that no specific charge or allegation for which the penalty has been pointed by the AO. He submitted that in the absence of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
