Introduction:
In the dynamic realm of income tax proceedings, one case has caught our attention – ITA No. 6694/Del/2019. This appeal, brought forth by the taxpayer, challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi, dated 26.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. Let’s delve into the intricacies of this case and understand the grounds on which the appeal is based.
The Parties:
On one side stands Amit Singla, residing at C-47/2, Part-A, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035, the appellant in this case. On the other side is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-47(1), New Delhi, representing the respondent.
The Grounds of Appeal:
Amit Singla, through this appeal, challenges the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on two key grounds. First, he contests the imposition of a penalty under section 271BA of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the tax auditors in their audit report specified Nil against the related party transactions. Thus, Singla asserts that obtaining a transfer pricing report in Form 3CEB was unnecessary, and the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 should be revoked. The second ground leaves room for the appellant to add, delete, modify, or amend the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon’ble appellate authority.
The Tribunal’s Perspective:
The proceedings took an interesting turn during the hearing on 12.04.2023, where, unfortunately, no one from either party attended. It was noted that the appellant had not provided a current address, and all attempts to reach them were unsuccessful. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the case based on the available records.
Background of the Case:
The genesis of the dispute lies in the assessment completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer determined the income at Rs. 6,10,46,390/-, deviating significantly from the returned income of Rs. 4,01,602/-. The crux of the matter was the assessee’s failure to furnish the 3CEB report, as mandated by Section 92E of the Act, prompting the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271BA.
Penalty Imposition and Appeal:
The Assessing Officer, unsatisfied with the non-compliance and the evasive tactics adopted by the assessee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. Unperturbed, Amit Singla appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, after due consideration, upheld the penalty.
