TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the same in its order at page No.11 and observed during the year under consideration the requirement is to keep and maintain any such information/document in respect of international transaction and no such condition to impose penalty on failure of reporting international transaction in the return of income. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified for the reasons stated in his order which is reproduced herein above. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.1133/KOL/2016, C.O.- 40/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - Sh. J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And Sh. S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Sh. S.Jhajaria, FCA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) may, in the course of any proceeding under this Act, require any person who has entered into an international transaction to furnish any information or document in respect thereof, as may be prescribed under sub-section (1), within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a notice issued in this regard: Provided that the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, on an application made by such person, extend the period of thirty days by a further period not exceeding thirty days. It would therefore appear that the assessee during the relevant year was obliged to maintain the records and details and was to file the same within 30 days when asked for. The AO has however imposed penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the provisions of law as then applicable and not divine them. The law as on the date of filing of the return can be the only law that governs the imposition of penalty. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijmohan 120 ITR page 1 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joginder Singh 151 ITR page 93. It is only logical to conclude that the assessee could not have contemplated the amendment in law with effect from 1.7.2012 on the basis of which penalty has been imposed by the AO. The decisions relied upon by the AO do not help him, as, as rightly pointed out by the Ld.AR, they address a completely different issue, that of limitation and the effect of amendments on pending proceedings with regard to issues of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified for the reasons stated in his order which is reproduced herein above. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue fails and it is dismissed. C.O.-40/Kol/2016 [In ITA No.1133/KOL/2016] (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) 4. We find that the assessee filed the above cross-objection supporting the order of CIT(A). Since a view has been taken by us in the Revenue s appeal above wherein we confirmed the order of CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. Therefore, Grounds raised by the assessee in cross-objection becomes academic and hence no adjudication is required. 5. In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the final result, the appeal of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
