Shri Varun Goyal, Sriganganagar V. ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner

ITA 149/JODH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6241 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT GOYAL
• Keywords: Arm length price
• Section: 92E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (SMC), JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 149/JODH/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 SHRI VARUN GOYAL, 1, SADAR BAZAR, SRIGANGANAGAR. VS A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AFKPG 3681 A ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANKIT GOYAL (CA) REVENUE BY SHRI ASHOK KHANNA JCIT DR DATE OF HEARING 24/05/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 06/02/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271BA OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT, FO R SHORT]. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FROM THE RECORD I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAI NED THE AUDIT REPORT AS PRESCRIBED U/S 92E OF THE ACT RELAT ING TO SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS IN PRESCRIBED FORM 3CEB FROM 2 ITA 149/JODH/2018 VARUN GOYAL VS ACIT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WITHIN TIME LIMIT I.E. 19/ 08/2014 ALONGWITH TAX AUDIT REPORT. DUE TO TECHNICAL REASON THE AUTHORIZED PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UPLOADED THE SAME TROUGH ONLINE WITHIN TIME BUT SUBSEQUENTLY HAS FILE D THE SAME THROUGH ONLINE. IT WAS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE METICULOUSLY MAINTAINED COMP LETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONSISTING OF CASH BOOK, LEDGER BANK BOO K, SALES AND PURCHASE REGISTER ETC. PURCHASE AND SALES ARE FULLY VOUCHED AND SUPPORTED WITH INVOICES AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF I NCOME TAX ACT. EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION WITH SISTER/RELATED CONCERN HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON COMMERCIAL BASIS AND PREVAILING FAIR MARKET PRICE. ALL THE RELATED PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND REGULARLY FILING THEIR INCOME RETURN. SINCE EAC H AND EVERY TRANSACTION WITH RELATED CONCERN HAVE BEEN RECORDED PROPERLY, ARM LENGTH PRICE (ALP) CAN EASILY BE DETERMINED AND VERIFIED. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALT Y U/S 271BA OF THE ACT FOR THE DELAY IN FILING UPLOADED A UDIT REPORT PRESCRIBED U/S 92E OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271BA WAS FIRST TIME INTRODUCED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL AWARE BY THE S AME, 3 ITA 149/JODH/2018 VARUN GOYAL VS ACIT ACCORDINGLY DELAY AROSE IN UPLOADING THE SAME. HOWE VER, THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR RAWAT VS . ITO (2011) 138 TTJ 0254, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH REPORT AS REQUIR ED U/S 92E FOR WANT OF ADVICE BY THE AUDITOR WHO HAD AUDITED H IS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 44AB AND FILED THE SAME IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE CAME TO KNOW THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE SUCH REPO RT IN FORM NO. 3CEB BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR T HE RELEVANT YEARS, THERE WAS BONAFIDE REASON FOR NOT O BTAINING THE REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CEB IN TIME AND IT WAS A VE NIAL AND TECHNICAL DEFAULT NOT ATTRACTING PENALTY U/S 271BA. SIMILARLY THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF J. J. EXPORTERS LTD. VS DCIT (2012) 51 SOT 0069 (URO) HAS HELD AS U NDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING THE FIRS T YEAR OF ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, THERE WAS REASON ABLE GROUND FOR THE LAPSE ON ITS PART IN NOT FILING THE STATUTORY REPORT U/S 92E WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND THE A SSESSEE HAVING FILED SUCH REPORT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS SUPPLYING ALL THE INFORMATION AND EVIDE NCE TO ENABLE THE A.O. TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT, PENALTY U/S 271BA IS NOT IMPOSABLE FOR SUCH TECHNICAL OR VENIAL DEFAULT. 4. IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE THE BENCH ALSO THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THEREFORE, APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN 4 ITA 149/JODH/2018 VARUN GOYAL VS ACIT ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, I DO NOT FIND ANY JU STIFICATION FOR LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S 271BA OF THE ACT, THEREF ORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/05/2018. SD/- [R.C. SHARMA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25/05/2018 *RANJAN COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 149/JODH/2018) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR JODHPUR BENCH