Amit Singla, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

ITA 6694/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Singla, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed for not obtaining a transfer pricing report in Form 3CEB for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act, significantly increasing the assessed income compared to the returned income. The penalty was initiated due to the non-compliance with the statutory requirement of obtaining a transfer pricing report, which the assessee failed to provide despite multiple notices. Both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108659 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 92E

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. _6694/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amit Singla, C-47/2, Part-A, Ground Floor, Back Side Gali, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035. PAN- AYNPS4674D Vs ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.04.2023 Date of pronouncement 17.04.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi dated 26.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 2 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case in upholding the impugned order of penalty passed u/s 271 BA of the IT Act on ignoring the fact that the tax auditors in their audit report in Form 3 CD has mentioned Nil against the column of related party transactions in S.No.18 therein and therefore the appellant was not required to obtain the transfer pricing report in Form 3CEB from the tax auditors. The omission of obtaining report in Form 3CEB in any way is not on the part of the appellant and therefore the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,00.000/- levied on appellant need to be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.” 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings. It is seen from the record that no one has been attending the hearing of the appeal. The notice sent on earlier occasion also was returned with the remark “left without intimation”. The assessee has not provided his current address. Therefore, under these facts, appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”), assessing income at Rs. 6,10,46,390/- as against the returned income of Rs. 4,01,602/- on 20.12.2016. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee failed to obtained 3CEB report in the prescribed form as mandated by Section 92E of the Act. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271BA of the Act. Thereafter, the 3 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 Assessing Officer issued show cause notice calling upon the assessee as to why penalty u/s 271BA should not be imposed. Statutory notices as issued by the Assessing Officer remained un-complied. It is further noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee kept on avoiding the proceedings and a reply was filed without proper authorization. Therefore, the Assessing Officer imposed the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). Before the learned CIT(Appeals) also the assessee remained unrepresented on various dates. The learned CIT(Appeals) after considering the material available on record sustained the penalty and dismissed the grounds of appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The learned DR opposed the grounds of appeal and submitted that the assessee has been negligent and did not comply with the statutory requirement. Therefore, the penalty was correctly imposed. 6. We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals) have recorded the fact that the assessee did not furnish the report as envisaged u/s 92E of the Act. The assessee 4 ITA No. 6694/Del/2019 has not rebutted this finding by placing any contrary material on record. Under these facts we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. The same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are rejected. 7. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court during the course of hearing on 17 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( M. BALAGANESH ) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI